Letters to the editor

Editor:
I have closely followed all the debates and proposals for a suicide barrier on our beloved Golden Gate Bridge, and have another suggestion - one that will not cost millions of dollars, but will pay for itself and include a "moment of intervention" for those with suicidal intent. Charge people to walk or bike across the bridge.

Imagine machines that will, for one or two dollars, vend a souvenir ticket with colorful artwork and a message that says: "Today (Nov. 1, 2008), I walked/bicycled across the Golden Gate Bridge." On the reverse of the ticket could be a message that says something to the effect of, "If you are having emotional problems or feel troubled, please call this number for immediate help." This would be followed by a toll-free number, which would go directly to counselors located at the toll plaza.

The ticket would be used at a turnstile to access the bridge, as is done at BART stations.

The utilization of this decidedly low-tech, low-cost method might be just enough to divert a person's self-destructive mood into a more thoughtful, solution-oriented way of thinking. If they are heading to the bridge with the intent to jump, the mere fact of having to stop in order to purchase a ticket may lead to doubt about their goal. And, if there is help close at hand, I believe many would-be jumpers would utilize it.

The tolls collected by the machines would pay for the system, including a couple of full-time counselors. I'm sure people wouldn't mind paying a dollar or two for the privilege of walking on our world-famous Golden Gate Bridge.
Andrea Ibarra

Editor:
The supporters of Proposition V claim the issue is about giving teenagers in public schools choices. Well, actually, a new program, "Leadership Path Way," is about to start at Lincoln and Balboa high schools. I can think of many other possible programs for teenagers, such as every school growing an organic vegetable patch or indigenous plant garden, or students taking turns after school cleaning up and monitoring local parks.

Such programs would certainly teach self-respect and leadership qualities, and also concern for the community. The "choice" of JROTC, on the other hand, is, as former Defense Secretary William Cohen put it: "one of the best recruiting devices we (the military) could have."
Chin Chi

Editor:
At least one San Francisco news source reported that 60,000 people attended the Open Lands concert on each of its three days of operation.

Consider, if you will, that 60,000 people is the same number of attendees as a sold-out 49ers football game.

Of course a 49ers sell-out crowd of 60,000 people uses purpose-built access roads to travel to and from the purpose-built parking lots that adjoin the 49ers' purpose-built events facility. Open Lands' attendees clogged residential thoroughfares adjoining Golden Gate Park on and off for the entire weekend (particularly the Friday night commute hours), overran the handful of available parking spaces in the adjoining neighborhoods, and congregated in a bit of urban parkland never intended to host massive multi-day events.

A 49ers game typically lasts less than three hours, leaving the entire event to span roughly six hours from start to finish. The pounding of Open Lands' heavily-amplified drums and basses was heard for almost 12 hours on both Saturday and Sunday, and continued until 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights.

Some may argue that the unprecedented appearance of ticket scalpers in the Outer Sunset justified the multiple, heavy burdens imposed on neighborhood residents by Open Lands. As for me, I cannot help but believe that the majority of Richmond and Sunset residents would prefer to simply see Golden Gate Park host a sold-out 49ers football game or two rather than endure another Open Lands three-day assault.
Riley B. VanDyke

Editor:
A few weeks back, the SF Board of Supervisors declared in its infinite wisdom that the August three-day rock concert was a success and that it wants more of these events.

Before they issue another word about this, they need to go home, lock their doors and windows, and then turn on their stereos full blast for three straight days. Then they can come back and report to us constituents how "successful" this concert was.

Because loud noise not only hurts people's eardrums but also harms one's cardiovascular system, the national Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared noise to be a major health hazard 40 years ago. On Oct. 8, the SF Chronicle had a front-page article describing how noise endangers people. The noise level during the August concert hit at least 100, when the safe level is 55, according to the EPA.

So, is the board condoning physical and mental suffering among the people of their city? Is the board saying it is OK to deafen and stress out this city's citizens, taxpayers and voters? Does this board approve the fact that the Recreation and Park Department is a major noise polluter?

My neighbors and I challenge it to conduct a poll of all residents from Park Presidio to 30th Avenue on both sides of the park to learn how much we enjoyed the worst weekend of our lives.

This board needs to do some basic research about the harmful effects of noise and talk with us constituents before they go off half-cocked again.
C. Smith