Open Letter,
TO SUPERVISORS AND TO ALL THOSE WHO STILL CARE. Your previous votes and positions on Bayview-Hunters Point Redevelopment are no longer relevant. This has gone way beyond that. This strikes at the very foundation of what remains of our democracy. This is the essence of totalitarian Bushevik tactics. This is selective enforcement of legal technicalities by the co-opted legal branch of a corrupt political establishment and power structure on behalf of their paymasters. This is a direct attack on the peoples right to participate in their democracy. This is bullshit. I may be many things, but one thing I am not, thank god, is a lawyer. However it would appear to me that one of the many things that render ‘Herr’ Herrera’s opinion specious is that this petition drive was not to directly challenge the RDA proposal, it was a challenge to the Board of Supervisors acceptance of the proposal on behalf of their constituents, and a request to be allowed to vote on this critical issue. I quote from preamble to full text attached to all our petition sign up sheets.
“We the undersigned, registered and qualified voters of San Francisco hereby protest the adoption by the Board of Supervisors of Ordinance Number 113-06, “Adopting the Redevelopment Plan for Bayview Hunters Point Redevelopment Project,” File Number 060343 adopted by the Board on May 23, 2006 and signed by the Mayor on June 1, 2006, and we petition the Board to reconsider and repeal said ordinance, or, if not entirely repealed, then to submit the ordinance to a vote of the electors.” I contend the the City Attorney’s ‘opinion’ is merely that, a worthless and bogus opinion issued at the behest of special interests and has no merit. The ludicrous statement that we were required to attach a document that was not the issue is further proof of the mendacity of our civic “leaders”. Our challenge was to you, our Supervisors, our elected representatives, and we repeat that challenge and demand that you represent us, your constituents, and either reverse your decision or place this matter on the ballot so We The People can vote..Up or Down.
I cant speak for any of the others who gathered signatures, but I was very explicit with all the folks in Noe Valley that I spoke to, and also instructed the “paid” sgnature gatherers on 24th Street ( oh my god, you mean they PAID people – that’s just not done!! ), that this was only an attempt to get the issue on the ballot so people could vote, and if they signed now they could vote against our position at a later date if they so decided. I know you all know in your hearts what the right thing to do is. But if your conscience is not strong enough to be your guide, think about this. 33,000 voters across the city signed and asked to be given the right to choose. How many do you think were from your district ? How do you think they will feel if you deny them the right to vote ? I can assure you all that we will not let this rest and we will not let people forget how you responded to this attack on their rights and civil liberties.
33,00 CITIZENS OF SAN FRANCISCO DEMAND THE RIGHT TO VOTE
Patrick Monk, Noe Valley
Editor,
(Paul), I sure hope your comments in Beyond the Chron concerning Prop 90 get wide distribution and recognition. Prop 90 truly is a nightmare for the reasons you have given.
Bob Passmore
Editor,
You have not read Prop. 90’s language. Your example regarding lost profits is incorrect – the law would only apply to future downzoning. Prop 90 would set a base line. If the City ‘downzoned’ after the passage of Prop 90 to a less profitable use – then the City would be liable – as it should be – for decreasing the property’s value. If you and I were to by land today that is zoned for multi-family; wouldn’t you want to be assured that this use will be preserved over the next 20 to 30 years – and if the City changes their mind and decides that it should be re-zoned for ‘open space’ – you wouldn’t want to be compensated? Why is there never any mention of the Redevelopment Agency increasing property values? It seems to me this is their job. Yet they and all the City Planners are too concerned and worried about their abitlity to ruin property values.
Robert Freeman
Editor,
Thanks for the article on 1c. I just wanted to point out that felons in CA can vote again after serving out their sentence but it is not automatic right. They must register to vote again.
Laurel Muniz
To the Editor:
May I correct Mr. Planthold’s answer to his rhetorical question: “How can anyone who is blind or low-vision benefit from a scrolling sign that requires vision? NextBus is not accessible to / for the blind / low-vision passengers.”
NextBus scrolling signs are, in fact, accessible to blind and low-vision passengers. Each sign includes a text to speech converter and one of the led’s puts out an infrared signal that can be heard by a device produced by Talking Signs, a system serving the blind throughout the country. This system has been part of NextBus signs from the start, and included after careful consultation with organizations representing the blind. In addition NextBus information is available audibly from 511, and NextBus phone servers. NextBus needs no apology but does need help making this service known.
Sincerely,
Kenneth J. Schmier, Founder, NextBus Information Systems, Inc.
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: rshaw@beyondchron.org
or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
415-771-1287 (fax)
