Aug 30, 2008

Letters to the Editor

Daily News

Blotter item insensitive

Dear Editor: Your police blotter often includes a lead item which, presumably, is supposed to be amusing and/or entertaining.

As a Holocaust survivor, I do not consider your item in the Aug. 26 blotter concerning anti-Semitic graffiti at Izzy's Brooklyn Bagels to be either amusing or entertaining.

Margot Goldberg

Palo Alto



Congress especially ineffective

Dear Editor: The 110th Congress has been especially unsatisfactory. An average approval rating of 20 percent and a disapproval rating of 74 percent is strong evidence that the American people are nauseated with Congress. Members of Congress do not seem to have an appetite for change. Real legislative achievements have been rare. Look back at what Congress failed to do the past 20 months:

Gas prices - Remove the congressional ban on drilling permits on the coast, or allowing oil shale that will further produce millions of barrels of oil in the U.S. and creation of new oil refineries in the U.S.

Health care - Reduction of prices so that every American can afford coverage. Most Americans get coverage through their employers. Those who buy their coverage outside their place of work pay through the nose or don't have any coverage. Congress has to level the playing field.

Nuclear energy - We need nuclear power to provide new sources of electricity that would unleash the power of the market. Transfer control of the nuclear waste management away from government to the private sector. Make sure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is adequately managed and funded.

There are so many other important items on the agenda that our lame-duck Congress fails to deal with - the national deficit, Social Security, income tax reform, illegal immigration, inflation, term limits and many more that concern we the people. Get on your Congressperson's tail and grip.

Walter Haag

Millbrae



Caltrain should embrace bikers

Dear Editor: As a regular commuter from San Francisco to San Mateo, I rely on the train every day to get from my home to my work. In general I have been very pleased with my experiences so far. My only real complaint is the lack of on-board bike capacity.

I have tried various combinations of biking and taking public transportation to get to work each day, and biking on both ends of my commute is by far the best option. Being able to take my bike on board reduces my commute from an unpleasant 90 minutes to a much more manageable 45 minutes.

The worst feeling when trying to get home for dinner is watching a Bombardier train pull up on a busy route. Not knowing if I'll be able to cram in or if I'm going to be stranded dozens of miles from home for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour is awful.

Increased bicycle parking does me and many others no good. We need our bikes on both ends of our commutes. The only real solution is better information for bicyclists about the capacity on each train and increased capacity for bicycles.

Increased bicycle capacity makes taking the train a more plausible commute option for many people, as well as being environmentally friendly.

I whole heartedly support the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition's plan and encourage Caltrain to incorporate its feedback before wasting money on unnecessary and unwanted bicycle parking.

Zachary Brock

San Francisco



Measure W attacks rights

Dear Editor: Having a city charter, as Redwood City does, is a privilege that gives residents much greater control over their future than most other California communities. Amending it for narrow purposes - and particularly in ways that attack people's rights - should never happen.

That is precisely what will happen if Measure W passes in November. It eliminates well-established city procedures for determining land use in Redwood City and forces special elections every time even a minor decision needs to be made about hundreds of properties. Worse, these elections will have a built-in minority veto.

Measure W really asks the majority of Redwood City voters to give up their rights under the charter and let one third of the voters decide the future of the other two-thirds. And the proponents claim that their amendment is about protection. They should be more concerned about protecting the charter and the democracy of majority rule. Join me in voting no on Measure W this November.

Jack and Raegene Castle

Redwood City