Remember When

I always enjoy the “remember when?” photo you print in your paper. I pick the paper up from my driveway each time with anticipation of what the old photo will be. So thank you for printing them. This month I was intrigued by the request for information. My first thought was that it reminded me of Ocean Avenue. As I happen to have a collection of old city directories, I thought I would look up the business and see if it was listed. Of course that would be too simple. So this information may be entirely wrong for your picture. There was nothing in the 1918 directory, and I don’t have 1919, but in 1920 there appears “Westwood Pharmacy” at 1526 Ocean Avenue. The proprietor was E.L. Nelson. That pharmacy was there for quite a few years. In 1933 there appears a Westwood Grocery at 560 Monterey, the proprietor Irma Baumgartener. That was only listed that one year, and the geography doesn’t fit the picture. The only other listed possibility was a Westwood Market, at 1708 Ocean Avenue. It too was only listed for only one year, 1934. My City Directory collection only runs through 1935. Perhaps this is information that you already accessed and which proved not correct. If so, forgive me for taking up your time. I just had a lot of fun puzzling it. Thank you.

Linda Edwards

I was just reading the Westside Observer online — and saw the photo of Westside Park Grocery -- sorry to say don’t know the answer to your question.

However—and you guys may know this trick—if you go to http://sflib1.sfpl.org:82/ and enter just <westside park> you get 94 photos of Westside Park, all dated “not before 1917” and many of them by Gabriel Moulin. One photo shows two women knitting on the front porch of a WP house. The notation on the back says “no 96”, perhaps the house number/street number.

Since there are streetcar tracks in front of the grocery, I assume this is Ocean Avenue.

Tom Mayer

Sept. 2010

Thanks Quentin!

I’d like to thank Quentin Kopp for his article, “Jig is Up for Justice.” I especially appreciated his comment on the newly appointed Superior Court Judge the Honorable Richard Ulmer - and the fact that his opponents in the up-coming election are weakly credentialed in comparison. I’ve come to admire Quentin Kopp’s judgment over the years, and because of his comments I plan to vote for Judge Ulmer. I only wish more information was provided every time there is an election that includes judges. I don’t know what other source there is for a person to inform themselves about the qualifications of judges running for office.

Virginia Hayes, Sunset District

June 2010

EIR Needed

A full Environmental Impact Report for the proposed soccer fields needs to be conducted. Golden Gate Park is a cultural, environmental and historical landmark for the city of San Francisco; the proposed GGP/Beach Chalet Soccer Fields significantly and seriously threatens its integrity.

I live and work at Ocean Beach, one block south of the park. I walk at least two hours of each day, seven days a week, in the park. At night I go outside to view the stars. I have lived my entire life in San Francisco (41 years); growing up near the Piers I never knew the sky could be what it is here at Lands End.

I’ve been living in the Sunset for nearly 10 years and have already been very negatively affected by the use of the park to generate funds to meet budget deficits. The Team In Training groups, the sundry Marathons, and the Outside Lands Concerts have only meant fecal matter and urine on my doorstep, excess trash in the neighborhood, physical pushing and shoving on the paths and in the park, and obnoxious drivers blocking my driveway or nearly running me over while I am walking.

When I heard they were planning a sports center I was, and am, horrified.

Supervisor Chu has expressed the idea that this proposed sports center will answer a budget need. I find that short sighted and negligent.

I am desperately concerned for the wildlife that live in the park. On my daily walks I have come to know the birds especially. The proposed lighting alone is of great concern. What is this light pollution going to do the nocturnal creatures and their habitat? And what about the unique place the western edge of the city holds for night skies? The fog, for which my neighborhood is notorious, will only amplify the light pollution. We need to foster habitats not destroy them.

I am also incensed that the city could even be considering artificial turf which has been shown to raise ground level temperatures an average of 20 degrees. This goes against its goal to reduce environmental destruction caused by urban life.

As I understand it, there isn’t even a plan for what to do with the turf once it ages and becomes unattractive for further play; given the rough estimate of its ten-year life span, I find this unbelievable. Nor is there any plan for disinfecting this turf, a fact the GGP gardeners, have expressed concern about. The rains will wash this into our ground waters and Ocean.

Golden Gate Park is a park. The Master Plan (1998) stated the need to keep the western edge pastoral. The district just gave a grant to Surfrider to increase permeable surface and promote the land stewardship; this proposed soccer field project, while it may increase city funds, and alcohol sales at the Park and Beach Chalet, will also bring more cars and destruction to park vegetation. It makes no sense.

With an EIR other options, such as maintaining the trees, plant life and grass fields for play, can be explored.

Dr. Reid Gómez, Sunset District Resident

Unnatural Destruction

Thank you for your article Paving Over Golden Gate Park in the February issue.

I am a business owner and resident of the Sunset. I live one block away from the Murphy Windmill that is currently under renovation, and I use the park for several hours each day.

I am incensed and alarmed about the city plan to install artificial turf and 60 foot sports lights in the park without even performing an Environmental Impact Report; considering the destruction to wildlife habitats, vegetation and the known elevation in ground temperatures (an average of 20 degrees) that will result, this is negligent at best.

Artificial turf is not sustainable. There is no plan for how to clean (disinfect) or dispose of the turf once it is installed. The soccer community admits they have a high percentage of staph infection. What about the animals, the GGP staff, and local residents who live and work in the park? What is going to be done with the turf when it has outlived its life? What about San Francisco’s proposed goal of decreasing garbage, increasing permeable surfaces, and the Secretary of the Interior’s National Register of Historic Places (2004) support for keeping the western end of GGP as a “natural woodland?”

The proposed lights will generate pollution. I am concerned about their affect on park wildlife. I use the park to walk and to watch and study the birds and twilight creatures. These lights will alter their habitat, and result in their destruction. What trees will be displaced for their construction? What will the light pollution do to the night skies and neighborhoods?

The proposed soccer fields will likely draw players from outside the area. In my experience with the sports events already generating income for the city and held at the western edge, this means more cars and more illegal parkers. They see the park and beach as a playground, not a home, and they leave trash and urine in their wake. And they certainly don’t ride MUNI.

My primary concern is for the soil. We must protect our topsoil. The dunes are a fragile ecosphere. The proposed artificial turf is not permeable. Trees will likely be uprooted and further weaken an already delicate soil environment. Damage to plant life is guaranteed.

People come to the western edge to see the sea, to see the windmills and tulip gardens. As I understand this age, and the city, we have made a declaration to foster care for the natural world, and to curb our role in the environmental destruction that results from city construction. At the least a full EIR should be conducted and legitimate alternatives should be introduced and pursued before any forward movement with this artificial non-permeable surface and light pollution project.

Niki Lee

May 2010

Soccer Field

This is the wrong project, wrong reasons, wrong place and time. Keep western GGPark serene, peaceful, and for day use only.

Dave Ferguson

Don’t Sign Muni Reform Petitions!

Don’t be misguided into backing Supervisor Sean Elsbernd’s proposed Muni Reform ballot initiative for November’s election. Elsbernd failed to convince his Board colleagues to place this initiative on the ballot and now needs signatures to qualify his initiative. Here’s why readers shouldn’t sign Elsbernd’s signature petitions.

Transit operators — Muni drivers — represented by TWU-250A already negotiate their salaries under collective bargaining, so Elsbernd’s claim that the ballot initiative will introduce something new is completely false. TWU’s current seven-year, 102-page contract with the City runs from 2004 through 2011; it contains an extensive section already permitting Muni to hire part-time employees, dispelling the nonsense that Elsbernd’s “reforms” will suddenly allow Muni to hire part-time employees.

Of the 2,350 transit operators on the City payroll as of December 15, 2009, 1,038 part-time drivers (44.2%) earned less than the $58,073 base salary of full-time drivers. Almost 700 (nearly one-third) of the drivers earned less than $50,000, and 487 (20.7%) earned less than $40,000, in base wages as part-time drivers.

Worse, Muni drivers have not had pay raises in two to three years. Wooding’s assertion that granting a 5.4% raise to Muni drivers will cost an increase of $8 million is wrong; City Controller payroll data for end-of-year 2009 shows a 5.4% raise would cost just $6.3 million in increased base pay. Personal income dropped by 2.5% in California last year for the first time since 1938. Inflation eating away at driver’s incomes during the past three years, without any raises, is just pushing more middle-class residents into moving out of the City, probably costing the City millions in lost sales taxes from drivers who shop in other jurisdictions.

An assertion that drivers don’t have to work 40 hours in a week to earn overtime might be germane, if the police officers contract didn’t also have the same stipulation that working more than eight hours in one day may result in overtime. Also lamenting that Muni drivers have automatic annual salary guarantees (ignoring that driver’s have not had annual raises for several years), but Elsbernd “forgets” that the police earn almost-guaranteed semi-annual pay raises every six months.

While Elsbernd bemoans the $6.3 million increase to bus driver pay in the face of the Mayor Gavin Newsom’s anticipated $522 million deficit, he neglects to consider that raises for police employees — only police officers, lieutenant’s, sergeant’s, and inspector’s — climbed by $4.8 million (2%) in January 2010, is scheduled to climb another $9.9 million (a 4% bump) in July 2010, and will climb another $5 million (another 2% raise) in January 2011. This 8% totals $19.7 million, before including yet another “thank-you” bump in July 2011 of up to 5%, estimated at $11.1 million, bringing their total 13% raises to $30 million between January 2010 and July 2011, just for the 2,450 employees in these four police job classifications.

This doesn’t include another 15% across five raises these police classifications already received between July 2007 and July 2009 in a five-year contract granting 28% in total raises.

Base pay for these four police classifications ranges from $102,648 for a Police Officer I, to $139,840 for a Lieutenant III. Sixteen lieutenant’s earned over $140,000 in base pay in 2009; one lieutenant earned $149,963 in base pay and $23,166 in overtime, which combined with “other pay” drove his total pay to $177,845!

While Elsbernd laments the salary comparison across jurisdictions for transit operators, he ignores that the police contract performs salary comparisons across 11 jurisdictions to arrive at a formula for setting police salaries in San Francisco. This is nothing more than a pyramid scheme that causes salary increases in one jurisdiction to then boomerang, causing police salaries in other jurisdictions to spiral upwards.

Jim Lazarus’s claim that City “employees have to realize they cannot keep getting paid the same when less money is coming in.” Tell this to police officers, Mr. Lazarus. After all, much of Mayor Newsom’s perennial budget deficits are caused by police who believe they not only should be paid the same with less money coming in, they feel entitled to their 28% in total raises, even in the face of a $522 million City deficit and 17,000 pink slips handed to City employees, pink slips designed to find revenue to keep giving raises to police employees.

It wasn’t bus driver salaries that caused the City of Vallejo to declare bankruptcy, it was police salaries. Elsbernd should focus on police salary reform, before police salaries bankrupt San Francisco.

Don’t sign Elbernd’s Muni “reform” petitions. If he was unable to convince the other ten Supervisors to place it on the ballot, we shouldn’t do it for him.

Elsbernd’s hypocrisy is breathtaking: In 2007, he not only voted as a sitting Supervisor to place the “Proposition A “ Muni reform on the ballot, he signed a rebuttal to the opponent’s argument, claiming Prop A would “bring Muni employees back to the bargaining table to create more efficient work rules.” Has Elsbernd explained his new flip-flop to Jim Lazarus?

Amanda Runcible, Twin Peaks

April 2010

In reading George Wooding’s article in the February edition of the Westside Observer, (Paving Over Golden Gate Park), I was amazed that someone so involved with the community could be so misinformed. If not misinformed, the only other possibility is a tremendous bias against the athletes who have used the western edge (better known as Beach Chalet) soccer fields in Golden Gate Park for more than 50 years.

Mr. Wooding implies that the area should remain “pastoral” with meadows (ne: the current 3 soccer fields) and surrounded by groves of trees. Ask any parent who has delivered their child to the Beach Chalet fields if they are comfortable with the knowledge that the “groves of trees” obscure the lurking men looking for whatever. The best thing that could happen would be to reduce those groves to a minimal border so as to discourage the “lurkers”.

Regarding the footprint the new fields would create: There are already 3 full grass fields and a restroom and fences around them. At most, there would be no more than a 20% increase in the open space. Most of the increased space would come from eliminating some of the groves.

Mr. Wooding portrays the inclusion of field lights and a clubhouse as a bad thing. Many of our baseball/softball fields have lights and absolutely every one of our golf courses has a clubhouse. Why would this be a bad thing?

The permits, exemptions, and other bureaucratic obstacles indicated by Mr. Wooding are no different than those encountered anytime anyone wants to do anything to change the status quo. They can be worked out without a big hassle or a lot of vitriolic.

Probably the most misdirected comments by Mr. Wooding have to do with the projected cost comparisons. I do not take issues with the costs he places on installation, repairs or maintenance. If one were to use his numbers, regarding costs only, over a 20-year amortization period, the artificial turf fields will cost about $10,000 per year less than grass on average. Beyond 20 years, the turf fields would be almost $80,000 less expensive per year.

These comparisons are for cost only: they do not take into account the revenue generated by the rental of the fields. One only needs to visit the new Crocker Amazon turf fields to realize the potential. They can be used almost constantly with no downtime for rainouts, reseeding or irrigation replacement.

Assuming the Rec & Park rescind their silly decision to triple field fees, the Premier divisions of SF Soccer and the Golden Gate Women’s Soccer League will return to SF to play on the turf fields. They will come back not just because of a fee reduction but because they will be able to rely on a “rain or shine” schedule. This can happen with turf fields. Not only will the city recover the lost income of approximately $100,000 but will eliminate he grass field maintenance of $42,000/year and replace that cost with about $6,000/year if turf field maintenance.

The Beach Chalet fields will not be converted to a picnic meadow even if turf is not installed. Adding a fourth field (turf or not) would go a long way in alleviating the incredible backlog of field demand by our youth teams. Turf would further enhance the outcome.

I would suggest a letter and/or a petition to your supervisor AND to Mr. Wooding supporting the new turfing proposal at the western edge of Golden Gate Park.

Richard Cross, 50 year SF Resident

After reading Mr. Wooding’s article on the “Paving of Golden Gate Park,” I was appalled to learn that a section of our nationally recognized historic park might be transformed from a woodland meadow with children’s soccer into a full-sized super-sports complex. This development apparently introduces structures where none were intended according to the park’s master plan.

The drawing in the article shows the present four fields to be expanded and adding two more. The park generously accommodates these grass soccer fields because they exist without conflict with the natural setting. But I gather that this concession is not enough in the eyes of those who view the park as just raw land to be developed.

It seems as if this new plan was drawn with no understanding of WHERE the complex is to be constructed. Golden Gate Park is not a vacant lot just waiting for someone with money to fix it up. It is already “fixed” with neat stuff like trees and grass and birds and bees, ready for people to enjoy. The Beach Chalet site currently serves multiple purposes from athletics to concerts with its flexible open pasture.

Golden Gate Park is special, very special. It is a gift of open space to the residents of a crowded city, both human and animal. It is a gift from the past to future generations to have something of value, far beyond the man-made structures that the early urban planners knew would fill up the city one day. It is the gift of nature to remind us of what is real and where we came from.

Thank you Mr. Wooding for bringing this poorly vetted proposal to our awareness. We did not know about this well kept secret. You mention that “there are many other parks and high schools where synthetic turf soccer fields could be built.” Let the Recreation and Park Department pursue these other sites for installing soccer complexes, and leave the western end our most unique and wonderful park as it was intended to be - undeveloped.

Anna Gordon, Sunset Heights

March 2010

Nurse Practitioner Jennifer Serafin’s November letter

Nurse Practitioner Jennifer Serafin’s November letter about Laguna Honda contained a number of inaccurate statements.

If nursing homes are pursuing efforts to reduce costs, why is LHH keeping its marketing and public relations staff at a cost of nearly $400,000 in annual salary while eliminating doctors? Why is a marketing department necessary for a captive audience of public health Medi-Cal patients other facilities won’t admit?

Serafin claims there “are no studies in any literature … that states reducing the number of physicians and replacing them with nurses … will worsen patient care.” Serafin should have reviewed the March 2009 Annals of Internal Medicine article by Paul Katz, MD that I referenced in October; Katz’s article noted marginalizing physicians in nursing homes threatens the overall quality of care to patients with medically complex illnesses, and noted that having a dedicated medical staff improves patient care. If in-house physicians improve patient care, then not having physicians will worsen care.

Serafin is wrong about “travelling doctors.” Patients in nursing homes without on-staff physicians do wait weeks to receive medical care, because travelling doctors rely on observational skills of nursing staff. When overworked nurses miss observing patient conditions, patients do wait weeks to see an MD.

Cutting expenses is one thing. But why is fox-guarding-the-RN-hen-house Serafin okay with cutting “extra expenses” of MD’s who provide direct care, when LHH has a bloated Nursing Administration Department that doesn’t provide direct patient care, including 16 Nursing Supervisors, 20 Nurse Managers, and 7 Clinical Nurse Specialists paid a combined total of $6 million in 2008 (seven earned over $200,000; 27 earned over $150,000). Private-sector nursing homes rarely have clinical nurse specialists, multiple nursing directors, and the number of nurse managers and nursing supervisors LHH employs, which “extra expenses” Nurse Serafin ignores.

Had Serafin actually read the Ja report, she’d know it recommends LHH’s certified nursing assistants (CNAs) take on more skilled-care work, by being trained to assume management of behavioral and substance abuse problem patients, which is outside their typical practice area — after CNAs just had their salaries cut 20.5 percent! Ja’s flawed methodology may have inflated his claim 46 percent of LHH residents have “behavioral diagnoses.” Ja, and Serafin, fail to note 100 percent have medical diagnoses; cutting doctors providing medical care to both groups isn’t simple cost-cutting.

If Serafin were really concerned about cost-cutting as a necessary part of life, cutting physicians and CNAs would be considered last (not first), since LHH pays its skilled-nursing registered nurses (RNs) the same pay rate ($61.05 hourly) the City pays its acute-care RNs. The web site www.indeed.com reports RN salaries in San Francisco residential nursing homes average $52,000 annually; the City’s web site shows that effective December 2009 LHH RNs are paid $126,984 after ten years of service, 2.4 times more than San Francisco’s average nursing home RN salary. For instance, LHH RNs are thought to be paid almost $20 more hourly than RNs at the Jewish Home for the Aged. Does Serafin know why LHH CNA salaries were slashed, but LHH RN salaries weren’t?

Instead of eliminating doctors entirely, and slashing the pay of CNAs 20.5 percent, how about starting first paying LHH RNs skilled-nursing, rather than acute-nursing, salaries? That alone would save tens of millions annually!

The City pays its Nurse Practitioners $81.50 hourly (who were paid $300,000 in overtime in 2008), and its Physician Specialists $81.78 hourly (who earned no overtime), so there is no savings to be realized from replacing MD’s with Nurse Practitioners.

If Serafin’s main shtick is “cost cutting,” she should start with cleaning up Nursing’s back yard. Eliminating MD’s is a negative move when it causes medical neglect.

Patrick Monette-Shaw www.stopLHHdownsize.com

Has anyone noticed

Has anyone noticed that anyone who has run for Supervisor in District 7 over the past several elections ends up in controversy? The hotly-contested race between Mabel Teng and Tony Hall enabled neighborhood residents to focus on politics and issues, but... how many of us can remember discussing the details of that race? 

Next came the infamous “triple play” manuever involving Annemarie Conroy, Tony Hall, and Sean Elsbernd. How many of the local residents have an opinion about the pros and cons of that “agreement”?

In the November, 2008, election, a written complaint was filed with the Department of Elections and the Ethics Commission questioning the residency of Supervisor Elsbernd (as in did he live in district seven during this campaign?). As of now, there has been no written statement from anyone, including Mayor Newsom and the City Attorney’s office. In fact, the current controversy is still undisclosed by city hall leaders.

I believe that District 7 residents deserve a written, detailed explanation, with facts and findings as it’s one year later. C’mon City Hall, let us know the truth on this and clear this up once and for all.

Douglas Yep – Longtime District 7 resident

December 2009

I would just like to comment on the article “Laguna Honda’s Unkindest Cut”

I would just like to comment on the article “Laguna Honda’s Unkindest Cut”, by Patrick Manette-Shaw, published in the October 2009 issue.  I have worked for over 10 years as a Nurse Practitioner in another Long Term Care facility in San Francisco, and I would like to clarify some of the comments made in the article.  First, there is effort underway in all nursing homes to reduce costs, so Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) is no exception.  During this economic downturn, most hospitals and nursing homes are slashing staff positions to cut costs.  However, the author feels that these cuts would be detrimental for the types of patients that LHH contains.  He mentions the “Ja Report” is an incomplete analysis, and feels that their data is flawed.  First, there are no studies in any literature that I have read that states that reducing the number of physicians and replacing them with nurses, social workers, and psychologists will worsen patient care, especially in regards to substance abuse treatment. 

Secondly, the article voices concerns that losing staff physicians and using “traveling” physicians instead will cause patients to have to “wait weeks for medical care”.  Let me assure the public that this absolutely not the case.  While it is true that federally mandated visits (every 60 days) are required if the patient is stable, if a patient becomes medically ill or needs more medical attention, then more frequent visits are warranted, and can be provided by physicians and other health care professionals that come in to the nursing home.  In fact, this is how the great majority of nursing homes across the country operate.  Most nursing homes do not have staff physicians; all medical care is provided by outside doctors.  The reason for this is that most physicians bill Medicare/Medicaid directly for their services, and most nursing homes cannot support a large medical group as LHH can.  Therefore, LHH is lucky to have this kind of set-up, as it is expensive, so this is why there is talk of cutting this extra expense out.

 I would also like to clear up the concerns the author has about the CNAs in LHH.  First off, CNAs are not considered “skilled-care” providers.  Most CNAs train for just a few months to be able to provide care to patients. In fact, the care they provide is the basics, like feeding and bathing, not management of behavioral or substance abuse problems.  On the other hand, nurses, social workers, and psychologists are all positions which require more skill and training, which should improve the quality of care for most patients with behavioral health problems.

With our current health care system, unfortunately cost cutting is a necessary part of life.  However, I do not agree with the author’s comments that losing physicians and CNAs while replacing them with nurses and other health care professionals would be a negative move.

Jennifer Serafin RN, GNP

November 2009

I just found the October issue of Westside Observer.

The Remember When? photo shows a view looking north from the top of Merced Heights, probably Shields or Grafton Streets. The left side of the photo shows the Homewood Terrace Orphanage, on Ocean Ave between Faxon and Ashton Avenues. That’s Mt. Davidson at the rear.

At the right front corner of the photo is what looks like the old Farragut Grammar School--since turned into condos. It probably dates to the late 1930’s. I’ll be checking to see if I am right this time!

Thanks for your great publication.

Carole Issel - San Francisco

Jed Lane’s response to Tony Halls letter

I’m glad you were amused Mr. Hall, I’m actually one of your ex-supporters and we’ve met at least five times, I guess you’ve forgotten. I have no need to “stalk” you, you’re a recognizable man and you live on the street where I grew up. I pass by the intersection that’s the entrance to your street many times a day. If you don’t own the Harley I’ve seen you on - my mistake.

I’m far too old to be considered one of “those self-appointed whiz kids” having graduated from St Brendan’s long before you moved into the parish. Nor am I a “holier than thou San Francisco liberal”, since I actually fall on the conservative side of SF politics. Sorry I don’t fit your description of the bad bogeymen “other” that your straw-man argument needs to have any credence.

Let’s put all of that aside - who you think you are or who you wish I am - the state IS passing laws that will affect us all, even you. My goal was to bring the attention of my neighbors to the use of punitive parking fees to reduce vehicle travel. Raising fees to get people out of cars is happening in many cities around the world. Zurich, London, Stockholm, San Francisco to mention just a few. Muni service is so terrible in our hilly neighborhoods that we can’t rely on it so we don’t ride it. We don’t have the ridership so MUNI cuts the line out completely. If we don’t advocate we will all be left stranded like our neighbors in Forest Knolls will be as soon as the 36 stops running on Warren Drive.

While you and your compadres rail against the fees that are being charged, painting them as another unjust revenue source from an administration that you disagree with. Your neighbors will be left high and dry because their “leaders” stopped being involved and devolved into curmudgeons, ranting and tilting against windmills instead of getting off their donkeys, paying attention to what is going on and making an effort to shape the future. Our kids, Mr. Hall are why I’m involved in neighborhood planning, disaster resiliency and public safety issues. So think about it Mr. Hall what good do you do now? I don’t see you at NERT events. I don’t see you working on the CAPSS project or advocating for Forest Hill Extension at the Planning Commission. I don’t see you working on the Open Space, Housing or Community Safety Elements of the General Plan. I do see you at SPUR’s grand opening where nothing is getting done other than food, drinks and smooze time. Why don’t I see you at any of the SPUR seminars where you might actually get informed about new laws and be part of discussions about the future of San Francisco? I’m there, learning and advocating, why aren’t you.

Nope, I have to assume that you’d rather spend your time sitting on your donkey tilting at windmills.

Jed Lane

October 2009

Remember When? Not Quite…

My hard copy of the June 2009 issue arrived this morning. As always, I am deeply grateful for this publication, and have high respect and admiration for all of the contributors. This paper is the best source of SF news around.

I do have one correction for you this time. On page 15, the “Remember When?” feature has a photo of the Stonestown apartment construction in 1949. The caption states, that “the picture was taken from Vernon and Shields Streets, a hill just east of the project.” That is incorrect.

The photo was taken from a vantage point West of the project—otherwise we would not see Mt. Davidson and 19th Ave (just in front of the site) in the photo. The Vernon & Shields street corner is southeast of the project and could not give such a view. (Unless there is a camera in existence that would produce such unique shots!)

It is quite possible that the photo was taken from one of the apartment buildings under construction, as they were the highest points in that part of the City. (I was born here in 1943 and never left for very long.)

Carole Issel, San Francisco

July/August 2009

Response to Jed Lane’s “Enough Already With The Looking Back”

I was quite amused by the response of Jed Lane to my “Parking Column” in the May issue. Typical of the holier-than-thou San Francisco liberal, his desire to tell everyone how to live their lives seems to outweigh the facts. First of all, I do not drive a Harley or an SUV, or even a fancy sports car, but I am flattered by Mr. Lane’s obsession with my personal modes of transit. (Are you stalking me Jed?)

I just love how, when today’s self-appointed whiz kids are confronted with the truth backed by history, they just cannot handle it, and go on the offensive. A few tips for Mr. Lane, we all love good public transportation, we all respect sound environmental policies — transit first policies were around many years before being legislated in the City Charter — and thank goodness, not all of the environmental guidelines coming out of Sacramento are in the form of “mandates” that people like Mr. Lane seem to love. With his statements like “the raising of fees for destination parking are efforts to reduce driving” (ignoring the revenue aspect of fees) and references to the loss of the horse in favor of the auto, and the loss of the hitching post in favor of pavement, I think I can safely say that Mr. Lane has his ideas about carbon emissions mixed up with what used to be discarded by the horse! Readers, for a good laugh check out the You Tube clip of Jim Carrey “Environmental Guy”

Tony Hall, West Portal

July/August 2009

Enough Already with Looking Back

Over the years I’ve read Tony Hall’s writing in the Observer, I’ve usually had a good laugh.

Supervisor Hall’s issue in “Enough Already with the Parking” (May 2009) is that he can’t drive his SUV or his Harley wherever he wants and expect cheap or free parking. Obviously Ex-Supervisor Hall is not in the room with decision makers these days. If he was he’d be aware of the mandates that are coming from the State legislature requiring carbon emission reductions.

If Ex-Supervisor Hall didn’t have his attention stuck on looking back, or at least did some research on the subject for his article, he would know about AB32 and SB375. He would know that the Transit First Policy of San Francisco hasn’t been “in effect for the past 30 years” (it was added to the City Charter in 1996). He might also be aware of new legislation introduced very recently, (AB1171) that intends to declare “that free parking has significant social, economic and environmental costs.” (Sounds like a warning on a cigarette package.)

While I have fond memories of growing up and can be just as nostalgic for the old days of my youth and previous careers as Mr. Hall, I am actively working on policy NOW with various City bodies. The policy makers do NOT have their heads screwed on backwards. They are young, intelligent, earnest well intentioned and very hard working. They’re looking forward, not waxing nostalgic or reliving the accomplishments of yesteryear.

The raising of fees for destination parking are efforts to reduce driving. This is only the beginning. The future that is being planned recognizes the cost of “Americans’ unique and undeniable fascination with the auto.” We used to have the same love for the horse. If this were 1909 Mr. Hall would be bemoaning the loss of hitching posts and that awful pavement for all the new-fangled horseless buggies.

Forest Knolls is losing its poor connection to Forest Hill. If we don’t pay attention to what’s coming but focus too long on the rear view mirror we will all be walking up the likes of Warren Drive in the future. Areas of the City that were built before the age of the auto have much better public transportation than we do, the Richmond District for example. The west side residents will bear a large portion of the burden placed by law on the use of the autos if we don’t advocate for better access to public transportation starting now.

Jed Lane, Miraloma Park

June 2009

Click Above to View Observer Pages

WHERE TO FIND A HARDCOPY