Letters to the Editor

Many Doctors Use Prescription Database

The recent article, "System to Curb Abuse of Prescription Painkillers Goes Unused," unfortunately missed the mark regarding the prescription drug monitoring database, the Controlled Substance Utilization Review and Evaluation System, or CURES. While some might find initial challenges with enrollment, and in navigating through the CURES database program, the reporting information physicians obtain is invaluable.

I know many of my emergency physician colleagues statewide are actively enrolled in the system and we encourage all physicians to do the same. I question the reliability of the data suggesting few health care providers use the system. Within our ER the system is used on a daily basis. Emergency physicians do aggressively treat acute pain but in no way want to enable chronic prescription drug abusers who enter into an emergency room for nonemergency issues. This is why we strongly support CURES.

There may be flaws in the system, and we need to continue to promote it to the medical community, but there's no reason to dismantle or abandon it altogether. Members of the California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians are at the ready to work with the Department of Justice and others to finesse CURES and to encourage other doctors and pharmacists to participate in the program.

Sincerely,

Andrew Fenton, MD, FACEP
President-Elect, California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians

In reference to System to Curb Abuse of Prescription Painkillers Goes Unused by Shoshana Walter , published April 8, 2012, 10:26 a.m. PDT

Health Districts Are Fulfilling Their Legal Mandate

The article “As the Uninsured Go Without Care, Health Districts Hold Reserves of Money” by Jennifer Gollan and Katharine Mieszkowski, which appeared in the Bay Area section of the Sunday New York Times, March 10, 2012, fails to understand the distinct and separate responsibilities of County Health Services and health care districts in California. It does not articulate the rationale for maintaining a district reserve fund, and it makes several statements about allocation of district resources suggesting self-dealing and financial mismanagement. The piece is unbalanced in its failure to mention the many contributions health care districts make to the benefit of their respective communities. As chair of the Peninsula Health Care District, I will confine my comments to our district and San Mateo County, which reflect district/county relationships throughout California.

The legal mandates for San Mateo County Health Services and the Peninsula Health Care District are different and distinct. The county is the health care “provider of last resort” to indigent patients, as mandated in California’s Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17000. The health care district’s authority is broader, and its legislative mandate is to serve the health needs of all residents within the district and not to duplicate the role of county as a provider of health care to the uninsured. Health & Safety Code Section 32125 (b) directs that health districts “not subsidize County patients.” Gollan and Mieszkowski fail to understand this distinction as they highlight PHCD’s refusal to “contribute $4 million for subsidized health care for residents like Ms. Chen,” implying insensitivity to the needs of the less fortunate by not handing over district funds to cover the county’s obligations.

PHCD is among those largely urban districts that do not operate a district hospital. It does, however, have both oversight and financial responsibilities with respect to the community hospital now owned by Sutter Health on land leased from the district. PHCD and Sutter Health reached a set of agreements, approved overwhelmingly by the voters of the district in 2006, to build a new hospital on district land meeting California state requirements (SB 1953) for seismic safety with no increased taxes. Sutter owns and operates the new, $640 million hospital and signed a 50-year ground lease with the district, which has oversight responsibility with respect to core services and the obligation to maintain and grow a reserve fund to protect the people of the district should Sutter undergo a paramount default, and to buy back the hospital at the termination of the lease. PHCD’S reserve fund obligation to have the financial ability to preserve its community hospital was a promise made by the district during the course of many public meetings. The obligations to oversee the operations of the hospital and to have the capacity to assume operations of the hospital if Sutter fails led to the approval of the agreements (Measure V) by an overwhelming majority of the voters of the district. The new Mills-Peninsula Hospital is a community resource of great importance to the people of the district. The district’s responsibility in preserving this community asset cannot be overstated or ignored.

Amid a scattershot discussion of several health care districts is the implication of “profligate spending,” “stipends for the board of directors” and “lifetime retiree health benefits” for board members and former board members. PHCD does not and has never paid salary, health, retirement or any other benefits for the five board members who are directly elected by the voters of this district. The directors on PHCD’s board serve without financial compensation of any kind.

Although PHCD does not subsidize the health care of the underserved in San Mateo County directly, many of our programs benefit this population. PHCD has supported the Children’s Health Initiative since 2002, and this year increased its support to $1.5 million to provide health insurance for 100 percent of children in the district. That means that every single child under 18 years old in our district, which is roughly 40 percent of San Mateo County, who cannot afford health insurance is covered by our support of this program. PHCD has provided financial support for this San Mateo County program since its inception. In all, the district has contributed $7.86 million to make sure that uninsured children in our community have access to health care.

We also support the Community Health Network for the Underserved with a four-year grant of $ $1.1 million, and fund a county psychiatric residency position with a four-year grant of $500,000. In addition, we pledged $4 million over three years for a Healthy Schools Initiative, which will impact 20,000 school children living in our jurisdiction. In total, PHCD has pledged well over $10 million in support of San Mateo County-sponsored programs in recent years. Moreover, PHCD supports many other health-related programs that benefit the underserved and help to relieve the county of its safety net obligations. Just to name a few: Samaritan House ($2 million), Senior Ombudsman Services ($800,000), StarVista ($640,000), and the building of a Recovery and Resource Center in San Bruno following the gas pipeline explosion in 2010 ($100,000). It is regrettable that the authors failed to acknowledge the district’s sustained support of this magnitude for county-sponsored programs and other community programs that benefit the less fortunate.

The Gollan/Mieszkowski article raises larger issues of health care reform and government funding for the safety net. As American health care has become increasingly unaffordable for many, not just the poor, the recent recession has seen state and local funding for subsidized health care cut back at the same time that demand has increased. What is needed is health care reform, i.e. “bending the cost curve” for medical care, and responsible political leadership to agree on an adequate safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves. What seems to be called for in the article, and which is not the answer, is a free-for-all in which one government agency raids another for funds, and the attitude that tax payer monies must be spent on immediate needs rather than for future purposes.

Daniel J Ullyot, M.D.
Chair, Peninsula Health Care District

In reference to As the Uninsured Go Without Care, Health Districts Hold Reserves of Money by Jennifer Gollan and Katharine Mieszkowski, published March 10, 2012, 2:21 p.m. PST

Article Could Discourage Veterans from Seeking Care

I write this letter in response to Aaron Glantz’s recent story about a young veteran who lost his life in 2010, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Inspector General’s Report that was just released on the issue. My deepest concern about the story and the very misleading headline is that it will deter veterans from seeking care at VA — the very thing that could potentially save their lives. A full reading of this report describes the many interventions made in this particular case, including the inpatient care provided on the day the veteran was seeking VA care.

Mental health care can be challenging, and the act of suicide at times is an impulsive action. This further complicates the ability to anticipate and prevent this devastating event.

VA is acutely aware of the stressors of our veterans as they reacclimate to civilian life. VA is increasing mental health services to help address these needs, including providing counseing to families of veterans. Incidents like these highlight the importance of veterans' accessing early mental health treatment. Everyone — VA staff, family, friends and community — has a responsibility to reach out to our veterans returning from combat.

We owe our veterans a huge debt — we all need to reach out positively to encourage veterans to access VA care.

Elizabeth Joyce Freeman
Director, VA Palo Alto Health Care System
Veterans’ Crisis Line: 1-800-273-TALK (8255)

In reference to Report: Social Workers Failed to Ensure Proper Care for Distressed Veteran by Aaron Glantz , published March 21, 2012, 6:35 p.m. PDT

Congratulations on an Unexpected Delight

Where did you find Marina Luz? Or did she find you? In any case, you're both to be congratulated. Her reports on all and sundry are compelling on two fronts: her wry but never disdainful prose and her fond, delicate drawings of all manner of flotsam and jetsam. These features of hers are worthy of the New Yorker back when the New Yorker was worthy of such reportage. An unexpected delight.

Sincerely,

Andrew Ward
Davis, Calif.

In reference to One Man's Trash: The White Elephant Sale by Marina Luz, published March 6, 2012, 8:52 a.m. PST

Voters Passed Prop. 13 for Good Reason

Re: "Silicon Valley Neighbors Facing Vastly Different Tax Rates" (Feb. 24): While Aaron Glantz throughly explains the unfair aspects of California's Proposition 13, many readers must have been left wondering, as he failed to mention the main reason why voters overwhelmingly passed such a measure in 1978. The reason is that thousands of middle-class homeowners who worked hard all their lives to pay off their mortgage would be "turfed out." This meant that they lost their homes when skyrocketing real estate values resulted in astronomical increases in their property tax based on reassessment of the land value. Retired, older people on lower fixed incomes could no longer afford to pay their property tax, which frequently increased by many thousands of dollars, and they were out on the street. Prop. 13 was a dream come true which rectified an awful situation for these people.

Was this a simple omission by Mr. Glantz, or does he have an ax to grind?

Rick Norkin
San Francisco

In reference to Silicon Valley Neighbors, Facing Vastly Different Tax Rates by Aaron Glantz , published February 23, 2012, 6:20 p.m. PST

Protesters' Voices Are Missing from Story about Occupy and Police

I am writing in response to an article published Feb. 5, 2012 in the Bay Area section of The New York Times. As a long-term subscriber and a small business owner, I am surprised and alarmed by the errors and bias exhibited in the story, “Occupy Protesters Stretch the Police, Leaving Parts of Oakland Underserved,” by Shoshana Walter and Aaron Glantz.

The problems within the Oakland Police Department have been well documented, yet the interviewees are members of the OPD without a single protester comment for the article. The arrest of protesters outside the YMCA did not follow court-ordered procedures that date back to 2003.

The article attempts to highlight challenges facing the OPD by taking aim at the protest movement itself without exploring any of the underlying issues, including the march. Feedback from women, children and seniors present could have contributed to a more balanced, even-handed report of events that day.

The reporters’ reference to a swaying corpse to lead off the article had nothing to do with the protest march itself and is purely sensationalist. The reported total of five homicides within a day of the protest includes two homicides occurring earlier on Friday, Jan. 27, (the case of the teenager and his parents) that did not fall within a 24-hour period.

With the blight of unused, publicly owned buildings, perhaps the idea of some form of peaceful, cooperative use could have been a helpful line of inquiry. Women, children and seniors are not necessarily motivated by criminal intentions. Why is this article reduced to the level of a police story?

The expense of unnecessary jailings — without a subsequent filing of charges — is both a financial error and a civil rights violation, and should have been at least reported, if not made the focus of the reporters’ story. A real financial consideration would be addressing a class-action lawsuit brought against the city of Oakland for continuing problems with OPD behavior.

The mayor’s office has demonstrated indecision and a lack of sensitivity to voters who have a right to gather and express their opinions. Given the public’s right to demonstrate, surely heavy-handed police tactics and errors in judgment are worthy for evaluating and possibly reporting in an upcoming edition of the Bay Area section of The New York Times, and elsewhere.

Sincerely,

J. Wallace
Berkeley

In reference to Occupy Oakland Provides a Lens into the Deep Dysfunction at OPD by Shoshana Walter and Aaron Glantz, published February 4, 2012, 12:25 p.m. PST

Saving Earthquake Cottages Took Sustained Effort

I enjoyed Louise Rafkin's article on 1906 Earthquake Refugee Cottages, but she underrepresents the effort and person-hours involved that it took to get two of them relocated to the Presidio. My mother, Mrs. Freda Eisenson, and her friend, Gwenda Davies, now in Australia, as well as Jane Cryan, worked for a long time to find a place to relocate the "Goldie shacks," as they were then known. Freda attended many meetings of the City Planning Commission, and wrote many letters to different boards and commissions, which I donated to the National Park Service in January 2007. Freda Eisenson was recognized by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, and was honored in a ceremony by the Army, chaired by Colonel William D. Swift, U.S. Army Commanding Officer, Presidio of the United States, on May 10, 1990. In her thank-you letters, Freda credits the Army Corps of Engineers and many others, including Bryan and Mimi Fewer, Board of Directors of San Francisco Beautiful, Amy Meyer, then Co-Chair of People for a Golden Gate National Recreation area, and Ruth Thompson, Librarian at 37th and Anza branch of the San Francisco Public Library, as well as Goldie Raczkowsky, the earthquake cottage resident of 37 years.

Saving these shacks and moving them to the Presidio was truly a sustained group effort involving many people. My mother was intensely involved in this work for a long period of time and was very gratified at the results. If she were still here, I'm sure she would have liked some acknowledgment of her efforts and those of others.

We enjoy reading The Bay Citizen and hope you will continue to flourish, providing local news which local newspapers do not cover.

Sincerely yours,

Elinore E. Lurie
San Francisco

In reference to Local Intelligence: Earthquake Refugee Cottages by Louise Rafkin , published February 4, 2012, 12:25 p.m. PST

Not All Unaccredited Schools Are 'Diploma Mills'

In the article “California Leads Nation in Unaccredited Schools” (Jan. 14), Jennifer Gollan unfairly singles out Frederick Taylor University. While the topic of unaccredited schools is worthy of discussion, Russ Heimerich from the Department of Consumer Affairs points out that schools like FTU operate within the existing laws of the state of California.

Furthermore, Frederick Taylor University provides a valuable service to students who cannot further their careers within the traditional school system. As Dibyendu Malakar, one of the two students Ms. Gollan interviews, indicates that he “needed a graduate business degree to advance his career, but he was working full time and could not afford $100,000 or more for a two-year M.B.A. program at Berkeley [or] Stanford.” Malakar adds that the education he received at Frederick Taylor University helped him prepare to “get a job as director of product management at a software company in Cupertino” — an outcome that is beneficial to him. Additionally, Shakila Marando, the other student that Ms. Gollan interviews, reminds her that distance-learning education “is very convenient and I can work full time” while completing her education. For many working professionals like Mr. Malakar and Ms. Marando, our distance-learning programs provide an opportunity to earn a postsecondary education for students who may not otherwise have the means or opportunity to do so.

In fact, Ms. Gollan’s statement equating unaccredited schools to “diploma mills” reveals little understanding of the definition of distance learning or its benefits. Although I explained to Ms. Gollan that a distance-learning school does not need a traditional library (reading materials are mailed or available through the Internet), lecture hall or a dormitory, she still presents these issues as if they are shortcomings. Those who are more familiar with higher education trends know that Internet-based learning — not more classrooms and dorms — are being embraced by leading American universities such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Furthermore, because distance-learning programs are not subject to the costs of traditional education programs (campus, library, dormitory), these schools successfully leverage Internet technology to provide students with a quality education program at a more affordable price point.

Frederick Taylor University operates within the existing laws of the State of California and provides a unique opportunity to students who cannot further their careers within the confines of the traditional school system. If the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education changes its requirements, Frederick Taylor University will adjust its curriculum to continue to meet and exceed any rules or regulations set forth by the state of California.

Sincerely,

Mansour S. Saki, Ph.D.
President, Frederick Taylor University

In reference to California Leads Nation in Unaccredited Schools by Jennifer Gollan , published January 14, 2012, 11:09 a.m. PST

Analysis of San Francisco's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Is Flawed

To the Editor:

Your article (“San Francisco’s Green Energy Claims Questioned,” Nov. 20) questions San Francisco’s assertion that it reduced greenhouse gas emissions to 12 percent below 1990 levels. While we welcome debate about our climate policies, the article’s analysis and conclusions are flawed.

Evaluating the carbon footprint of a city is complex. San Francisco’s methodology included taking responsibility for emissions associated with two polluting power plants within the city’s limits. This approach was accepted by registered greenhouse gas verifier ICF International, Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), and others. Your article, which alleges that San Francisco’s methodology is inherently flawed, is incorrect.

San Francisco used this same methodology in its recent study, showing a decline in carbon emissions to 12 percent below 1990 levels. We achieved this reduction by focusing on energy efficiency, renewables and waste reduction and by shutting down dirty power plants, a cause for celebration for the city as a whole, but most importantly for the city’s disproportionately affected low-income neighborhoods.

More than 70 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas pollution comes from cities, and meaningful reductions must be undertaken at the local level. San Francisco is leading the way by showing how local action can be part of the solution.

Melanie Nutter
Director
San Francisco Department of the Environment 

Michael Schmitz
Executive Director
Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI)

In reference to San Francisco's Green Energy Claims Questioned by John Upton , published November 19, 2011, 10:22 a.m. PST

Cuts to Care for Elderly and Disabled Make No Sense

“Budget Cuts Erase a Daily Lifeline for the Elderly and Disabled” (Oct. 27, 2011) was an important article and was extremely well done. It highlighted California’s stark budget woes that are forcing tough decisions. But the decision to eliminate adult day health care as a Medi-Cal benefit is nonsensical, especially when you consider that the “fix” recommended (that managed health care plans provide the required services) is both inadequate and ill prepared to handle the unique needs of this population.

The “elephant in the room” is the fact that upwards of 50 percent of people currently being served by adult day health care have Alzheimer’s or another dementia. Many of these folks successfully “hide” their functional limitations and can be on the chopping block for services and programs because, according to the strict, standard criteria, they simply won’t qualify under the new rules, or the evaluator is insufficiently skilled or trained to uncover the person's real and serious deficits. Additionally, managed health care plans are ill equipped to handle the social, emotional and safety needs of this population and their caregivers.

I don’t look forward to seeing the result.

Sincerely,

Sherrie Matza
San Francisco

In reference to Budget Cuts Erase a Lifeline for the Elderly and Disabled by Katharine Mieszkowski , published October 27, 2011, 5:37 p.m. PDT

Leaders at Synthetic Biology Lab Ignored Safety Recommendations

We would like to thank The Bay Citizen/New York Times for bringing the important matter of biological security and biologist conduct to public attention. We are writing to offer further clarification.

Synthetic biologists have been promising for several years now to make the engineering of new biological systems easier, and to make their results freely available. This commitment was what secured funding from the National Science Foundation. Unsurprisingly, the NSF made funding dependent on the inclusion of security, ethics and environmental concerns, termed “human practices.”

As the article mentions, the industrial advisory board for the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center, or SynBERC, wanted the human practices team to produce a simple code of conduct for safety. This code was in fact produced by the other principal investigator in human practices, Ken Oye, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who was in charge of biosafety. The adequacy of a code of conduct that assumes security will follow from biologists' policing themselves is arguable, but this is left by the wayside in light of the fact that Oye’s work was ignored.

The Berkeley team proposed that a basic first step would be for SynBERC to support a scenario-planning exercise to assess the state of preparedness for a security disaster, which was rejected by SynBERC leadership. However, it is worth pointing out that far from being displeased with the Berkeley team’s work, leaders gave the team top evaluations over the first four years of the project. Keasling wrote that it was a “surprise” to him when the NSF asked Rabinow to step down as head of human practices at SynBERC. Pointing to multiple publications on issues of security and ethics, Keasling insisted that Rabinow be kept on as a principal investigator.

Although it is clearly incorrect to say that security risks are “far-fetched” and that scientists have everything under control, it is not surprising that this is the official SynBERC line. During the Berkeley team’s tenure in SynBERC none of the principal players were willing to engage this issue if it meant they would actually have to make substantive changes to their practices.

Signed,

Paul Rabinow, Anthony Stavrianakis (Anthropos Lab, University of California, Berkeley)

Gaymon Bennett, Meg Stalcup (Center for Biological Futures, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle)

In reference to Berkeley Scholar Raises Alarm on Synthetic Biology by Jennifer Gollan , published October 22, 2011, 11 a.m. PDT

Demise of Green Jobs Greatly Exaggerated

With respect to Aaron Glantz's Aug. 18 article, "Green Jobs Predictions Proving a Pipe Dream," Glantz is far too hasty in prematurely dismissing green jobs. His article reminds me of the man who showed up at his own funeral and remarked, "Reports of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."

In his rush to judgement, Glantz seems to forget that we're in an economic downdraft and that the entire construction industry is in a deep recession and that funding for new power-generating projects has been on the ropes. Moreover, the electrical generating sector is not the major job engine of the green job economy, it's energy efficiency, which Glantz doesn't discuss. Finally, the relevant comparison is not between the job-production effect of investment in solar or wind and macro projections for green jobs but between the jobs per dollar produced by renewable energy technologies vs. those produced per dollar invested in oil, coal and natural gas. Green industries generally are far better at producing jobs than the fossil fuel sector, where in the case of oil, more than half of the nation's oil consumption dollar is shipped abroad to pay for foreign oil. Green dollars are generally spent in the U.S., where they produce additional economic activity through the multiplier effect.

John J. Berger, Ph.D.
Author of "Charging Ahead: The Business of Renewable Energy and What It Means for America" (Henry Holt, U.C. Press) and "Beating the Heat: How and Why We Must Combat Global Warming" (Berkeley Hills Books)

In reference to Green Jobs Predictions Proving a Pipe Dream by Aaron Glantz , published August 18, 2011, 7:26 p.m. PDT

Take Time to Question Data That Seems Unusually High or Low

In the story "As San Francisco Schools Crack Down Absenteeism Drops," Jen Gollan cited figures she found on the California Department of Education website without taking the time to question that, given the outlier in what is otherwise a stable pattern, these data may not in fact be accurate. I alerted Jen Gollan to this fact but she cited them anyway.

Here is the site she went to for truancy figures.

Here is what it shows:



As Jen began inquiring about this around 1 p.m. on the day before the story was published, district authorities on the matter weren’t able to produce an explanation by her deadline. I did state that I would try to ascertain whether or not this was correct. The fact that the numbers for all other years are relatively similar made me question these numbers. I said I would check to see if I could find anything out about this.

The next morning I alerted Jen Gollan what was reported in the 2004-05 school year through the state system “Dataquest” was, as far as we could ascertain, inaccurately low. The 2004-05 school year was the first in which the state was requesting this truancy data. At that time, this was all done manually, and all schools were surveyed as to the number of “first truancy” letters sent, and that is what was reported. Obviously, that resulted in a serious under-reporting of actual truants. In all subsequent years, the data reported was pulled from IT reports based on the legal definition of truancy, and the numbers have been pretty consistent across those years.

Secondly, the definition of truancy on the CDE site, “three or more unexcused absences,” is not the same as what the district is targeting with regards to our truancy reduction efforts. We are looking at reducing chronic (20 or more unexcused absences) and habitual (10 to 19 unexcused absences). The drop in these numbers is what we reported on recently. This year, there was a 16 percent reduction in the number of chronically absent students from the 2009-2010 to 2010-2011 school year and an 11 percent reduction in the number of habitually absent students for the same period.

Though provided, none of this information appeared in Ms. Gollan’s story.

Gentle Blythe
Executive Director, Public Outreach and Communications
San Francisco Unified School District

In reference to As San Francisco Schools Crack Down, Absenteeism Drops by Jennifer Gollan , published August 11, 2011, 7:56 p.m. PDT

Not Everyone Who Objects to Anti-Sprawl Plan Is a Tea Partier

The Bay Citizen's account of a public meeting in Oakland in May focused on the concerns and activities of the East Bay Tea Party. Although I am prominently featured in the photograph attached to the story, neither I nor my organization, HowMany.org, are affiliated with the Tea Party. In fact, our concerns with the development scheme discussed at the meeting are completely opposite from theirs.

From what I heard at the meeting, the people from the "Tea Party" would like each person to be able to build whatever they want on their private property. That means they prefer unlimited development in urban or rural settings.

Conversely, HowMany.org examines sustainable limits for both urban and rural development and the sustainable population size for various regions. As part of this, we investigate the link between overpopulation and environmental degradation. With respect to the Envision Bay Area real estate plan, we believe the Bay Area may have already reached its optimum sustainable population. We believe that growth is neither desirable nor inevitable and we should work together to make our communities better, not bigger.

To that end, our research has uncovered grave inconsistencies between claims made by the complex coalition of realtors, bankers and developers who are driving the Envision Bay Area real estate plan, and the actual science behind carbon emissions and existing California law. The pretense for the entire plan hinges on “transit-based” development, or “transit priority projects,” as outlined by California Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008.

The stated purpose of SB 375 is “to enhance California's ability to reach its AB 32 goals by promoting good planning with the goal of more sustainable communities.” The stated goals of AB 32 are to improve our air quality by reducing carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.

This is where the premise behind Envision Bay Area –- and its slick promotional website -– begins to break down. How is it possible to reduce harmful carbon emissions while continuing to add hundreds of thousands of new housing units and millions of additional people? Unfortunately, when you crunch the numbers and examine the assumptions behind the plan, Envision Bay Area is inherently unsustainable and appears to be little more than a real estate hoax cloaked in “green” terminology.

The promotional website claims building 903,000 new transit-based units to draw 2.2 million more people here will decrease carbon emissions and traffic congestion. However, simple math and logic show that even if per-capita emissions in the Bay Area drop 15 percent by 2035 –- as suggested but not mandated by the California Air Resources Board under SB 375 –- so long as population increases by roughly 34 percent (2.2 million) over the same period, emissions will rise approximately 14 percent. That's an increase of over 14 million tons of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases every year.

The promotional website also claims that building 903,000 new transit-based units to draw 2.2 million more people here will bring 1.2 million jobs to the Bay Area. Sadly, beyond that enticing claim, the site is devoid of information that explains or supports how this will happen. Today, nearly 1 million Bay Area residents are unemployed, and Silicon Valley continues to shed jobs. Would a better use of resources be spent retraining workers and creating stable jobs? Adding more housing will provide a handful of temporary construction jobs, but will bring far more people into the region to compete with our current residents for good permanent jobs.

There are many unanswered questions about this massive real estate effort, including why SB 375 exempts transit-based development from the California Environmental Quality Act and ties billions in transportation funding to cities' participation in the development. Also unanswered is the question of who is financially backing the plan and its marketing efforts. We've been told the primary donor is a private foundation that wishes to remain anonymous. Finally, perhaps the most glaring and fundamental question is how this massive population increase will help Bay Area communities reach their economic and environmental goals.

HowMany.org supports priorities such as reducing carbon emissions and energy consumption, improving air quality and living within our water resources, stable jobs for current residents, fewer housing vacancies and bank foreclosures, preserving open space, ensuring public health and safety and providing better access to transit.

Unfortunately, these priorities are threatened by the myths that the addition of 2.2 million new residents is inevitable; that our communities are unable to determine their own sustainable size; and that congested cities somehow help achieve our goals. Bay Area residents need to know they can challenge Envision Bay Area and its partners to redirect their efforts to creating more and better jobs for the people who live here now.

While the intent of the East Bay Tea Party is clear, the intent of Envision Bay Area is not. As such, HowMany.org and its supporters will continue to ask the difficult questions regarding this development scheme and its serious and harmful long-term impact on Bay Area quality of life. Readers who are interested in getting involved in the effort or learning more can contact us at info@HowMany.org or 510-848-9062.

Sincerely,
Searle Whitney
President & CEO
www.HowMany.org

In reference to Tea Party: Anti-Sprawl Plan Will Take Your Freedom by Zusha Elinson , published May 26, 2011, 6:58 p.m. PDT

Seaweed Not a Threat to America's Cup

There were a number of factual errors in your story about correspondence from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board with respect to the 34th America’s Cup Races and James R. Herman Cruise Terminal Project.

Contrary to the content of your coverage, the environmental review and permitting process for the 34th America's Cup are proceeding as planned. With a review this extensive and important, a timely notice from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, is not only anticipated, it is appreciated. It is in no way an indication of a rejection of the project.

The issue of ocean-going seaweed / invasive species is an issue endemic to ports and maritime operations the world over: one brought to the world's attention with the increased recreational and commercial use of the oceans. It's a serious issue, which is exactly why we take this environmental review process and our dialogue with our regulatory partners so seriously. It is true the influx of vessels entering San Francisco Bay from other areas could pose potential risks in this regard, but your writer’s implication that the plans for America's Cup are somehow unusually or uniquely risky with regards to this issue is not accurate. Further, we see the spotlight afforded by the America’s Cup as a way to develop a better model for how to address these risks and a heightened awareness of these issues for future events and projects in the Bay and around the world. Taking proactive steps to address the serious issues of non-Bay indigenous flora is a critical aspect of our ongoing process, and is expected. An article saying "Invasive Seaweed Fears Stall America's Cup" is more than misleading: it is false.

The City and County of San Francisco and the Port take our environmental stewardship of San Francisco's Bay and waterfront very seriously, and we appreciate serious, accurate reporting just as much. We're looking forward to continuing to be, as we have been throughout this entire process, transparent and effective in addressing all of the legitimate concerns raised by our partners in this effort, especially the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

To summarize:
1) AC permitting is not "stalled" -- it is proceeding per plan and on time.
2) Regulators have not refused to issue permits.
3) The RWQCB permit application was not rejected.
4) The incomplete application letter asked for four items to be submitted to consider the application complete. The invasive species inquiry was not one of those four items.

The Bay Citizen reporter asked if this letter was expected. The Port of San Francisco responded that it expected to receive this letter and that it is part of the typical process with the RWQCB. The Port further explained that the RWQCB reviews the application for completeness and sending a letter is not out of the ordinary. Finally, the Port explained that once the RWQCB determines the application is complete, only then do mandatory timelines begin.

The City and the Port are taking a thoughtful and collaborative approach to developing a project plan that will create a Cruise Terminal project and a set of America’s Cup events that San Francisco can be proud of. We are also doing our best to inform the public as to the specifics of this complex undertaking. I hope that future reporting will share our desire to educate the public accurately about this challenging but ultimately beneficial planning process.

Sincerely,
Michael Martin

In reference to Invasive Seaweed Fears Stall America's Cup by John Upton , published July 26, 2011, 7:03 p.m. PDT

Response to 'Schools Struggle with Protocols for Restraining Unruly Students'

Ms. Gollan requested an interview, explaining she was writing an article about the general issue of restraint. As the final product shows, she had no intention of writing a general article. It was nothing more than a pretense to write an attack piece on Handle With Care and Bruce Chapman. She later boasted to me that her actual purpose was to disrupt HWC’s relationships with the Bay area schools that are teaching HWC and to dissuade other schools from doing business with us.

Ms. Gollan’s request for an interview came exactly eight hours after I submitted comments to San Francisco Congressman George Miller, concerning pending federal legislation that, if enacted, will violate every teacher’s legal right and legal duty to protect children under his or her care and supervision. George Miller received my submission by email at approximately 9 a.m. Pacific Time. Ms. Gollan contacted me at 5 p.m.

My company has been instrumental in derailing legislative efforts by the "restraint-free movement" in multiple states and jurisdictions, most recently in Florida, Oregon and Colorado with our position paper. In it, we cite the constellation of federal laws, federal administrative case law and the laws of all 50 states, including California, that are preventing legislation and regulations from moving forward throughout the U.S. Miller and his cohorts in the movement have no answer for it and are now resorting to harassment and intimidation to silence and punish my company and myself.

Ms. Gollan’s personal attack is deliberately misleading. She cites a fatality in Pennsylvania in 1999 that was thoroughly investigated by the Lancaster County district attorney and the Pennsylvania state police. In the official DA report, HWC, our physical holding method and training protocol were found faultless. We were never sued by the family of the deceased nor were we involved in the settlement. It is a non-story.

I am particularly outraged by Ms. Gollan’s insinuation that I am a homophobe, which she bases on a comedic parody posted on You Tube by the skit's director and producer. My performance parodied the idiocy of homophobia, with my character delivering a psychotic rant while shooting a pistol to punctuate sentences. The character is dressed in an oversized lumberjack shirt, wearing an ear-muffed ski hat emblazoned with the word “Mental” in bright gold letters. In the final cut, the producer added the sound of clucking chickens and crowing roosters to every gunshot. Anyone who could possibly construe anything else from this skit is a bigger idiot than the character I was portraying. As I told Ms. Gollan, I marched in one of Philadelphia’s earliest gay rights parades in the summer of 1973. I am as proud of that now as I was then, and at a time when few straight men were willing to march in support of the GLT community. Ms. Gollan ought to be ashamed of herself.

This is not the first time Congressman Miller has harassed HWC and myself. In 2009, when Miller chaired the House Education Subcommittee, he used an instrument of the federal government (the Government Accounting Office) instead of a reporter to harass and silence me for submitting identical comments to him. In a return volley, I triggered an investigation of Miller. Touché.

I have just asked the inspector general to conduct yet another investigation of Miller's office. We recommend that, this time, the inspector general focus on communications between the Miller office and Ms. Gollan on the day of June 22, when my comments were submitted and I was contacted by Ms. Gollan eight hours later. The full letter is posted here: http://brucechapman.com/advocacy/gao-investigation-2/

If Ms. Gollan and her editors at The Bay Citizen thought Gollan's smear piece to be newsworthy, it will be interesting to see if "all the news that's fit to print" includes the official harassment of an American citizen by a United States congressman -- using a Bay Citizen reporter as his proxy.

For the latest news on this developing story, go to www.brucechapman.com.

Bruce Chapman, President
Handle With Care
www.handlewithcare.com
www.brucechapman.com

In reference to Schools Struggle with Protocols for Restraining Unruly Students by Jennifer Gollan , published July 7, 2011, 5:11 p.m. PDT

More to the Story of an Empty Mission District Building

While we acknowledge that there was some difficulty by your reporter in finding the right person to talk to in our organization, we were able to provide what we believed were key facts to your publication. In our interviews, we underscored our strong desire to commence development, but were waiting for the city to grant our demolition permit, which had been submitted. In fact we have our demolition contractor and new construction contractor waiting in the wings to commence. The article implies that we are negligent landowners. To the contrary, we are diligently attempting to have the city release both the demolition and new construction permits. We acquired the building only eight months ago after years of neglect by prior owners for the sole reason because we were ready to develop the project. For some reason, Mr. James failed to include such key facts in this piece. Thus, the article is inflammatory and, I believe, primarily reflects the understood frustration of neighbors that has gone on for approximately 10 years -– yet the onus was on Avant, which inherited the ongoing issues, and has only had control for eight months. In that time, we have cooperated with Arriba Juntos, the nonprofit neighbor that is a cornerstone of the Mission community, to try to comply with the city's vacant building regulations, all the while continuing to push the demolition permit through the city. It is unfortunate that the longtime neighbor and community organization was unable to comment in the article. The very nature of a vacant building is difficult to monitor, but we have been and will continue to be vigilant The article's title calls our building a "Blight" on an "Up-and-Coming Mission Block" -- I think what the article fails to point out is the reason why the block is up and coming is the tremendous investment both our organization and CalPERS have made in helping to revitalize this block. Once granted the ability to demolish and redevelop, the future contribution Avant will make to the city –- and this Mission neighborhood in particular -- will surely override this unfortunate misstatement of facts.

There is a much deeper story to this project, our organization and our commitment to urban infill transit oriented development in transitional areas of San Francisco.

Eric Tao
Principal
Avant Housing
AGI Capital Group

In reference to Empty Building a Blight on Up-and-Coming Mission Block by Scott James , published July 7, 2011, 5:50 p.m. PDT

Recology Earns its Keep

Recology recycles most of the stuff I throw out. It picks up my trash every week, even on holidays. It picks up my yard clippings, my discarded Christmas trees, my dead appliances when I ask it to. It offers every other kind of special service. It pays very good wages, and has for many decades. (There was a time when many landlords in North Beach worked for Sunset Scavenger, reinvented as Recology. These men were proud to call themselves scavengers. They were landlords who didn't raise rents.)

When I call Recology on business a human being answers--a human being whose accent tells me she lives in one of 2 counties: SF or San Mateo, not in Bangalore. No doubt, Mr. Sangiacomo is deeply entwined with our local power elite. I have fought this elite on many fronts but on this issue I say God bless them. No doubt a newcomer could come in with a lower bid. But for this customer of almost 50 years a lower bill would come with way, way too many bad tradeoffs. It ain't broke so don't fix it!

Joan Holden
San Francisco

In reference to City's Perpetual, No-Bid Garbage Contract Comes Under Attack by Elizabeth Lesly Stevens , published June 9, 2011, 5:16 p.m. PDT

Can San Jose's Unions Really Be So Economically Incompetent?

Most local municipalities are in trouble today because the words “I’m trying to avoid a disaster” were never in their lexicon. Elected officials, always focused on their next (short-term) election, never worry about the future. And, the very staff responsible for labor negotiations are themselves the lucky beneficiaries of these rich employee benefits and pensions. A little like the fox guarding the henhouse.

If “key unions” view San Jose’s financial projections as “imaginary,” you have to ask whether they can really be so economically incompetent. Only very basic math skills are needed to comprehend actuarial reality; it's a fact, not a fantasy that pension costs increase not in a linear fashion but exponentially.

Good luck, Mayor Reed.

Sherrie Matza
San Francisco

In reference to San Jose Mayor Declares Budgetary Martial Law by Elizabeth Lesly Stevens , published May 21, 2011, 9:58 a.m. PDT

Failure of Willie Brown Academy: We Saw It Coming

In reference about your article about the Willie Brown Academy, this has been a problem for many years. I know for a fact that the teachers can't control these students. The students rule the school. The majority of them don't have any respect for the teachers, and the principal doesn't do anything about it. Parental involvement doesn't exist in this school. We saw this coming, and really, it took them 18 years to realize the failure of this school. What a shame.

Wandy de Jesus
San Francisco

In reference to Willie Brown Academy Goes from Bad to Worse as Closure Looms by Jennifer Gollan , published April 16, 2011, 1:38 p.m. PDT

Teachers Should Be Involved in Decision Making

In 17 years of teaching, I have never seen an environment as heartbreaking and destructive as Willie Brown Academy. Your story (4/16) scratched the surface of the reality there. Numerous staff members have left this year, some due to student assaults. Violence is treated lightheartedly or deliberately ignored by administrators. This aspect of school climate is undoubtedly linked to abysmal performance and high staff turnover.

Despite egregious examples of mismanagement, teachers at WB are among the most dedicated, persevering in a no-win situation. As your article suggests, solutions don’t lie with uniforms, longer days or testing. Trained teachers currently in the classroom should be an integral part of decision making, not scapegoats. Policy makers are often misguided, unable to comprehend the realities of our schools. Some have never taught, much less at a place like WB, and it only takes a few years out of a classroom to become out of touch.

Marie-José Durquet
San Francisco

In reference to Willie Brown Academy Goes from Bad to Worse as Closure Looms by Jennifer Gollan , published April 16, 2011, 1:38 p.m. PDT

Give the Rich a Choice: Taxes or Investment

The column by Elizabeth Lesly Stevens (April 17, 2011) stated that " . . . public policy in recent years has all but conspired to allow ever greater amounts of wealth to be accumulated by a few . . . "

Ms. Stevens added that ". . . if each Californian could bequeath no more than $2 million, a 100 percent tax on the surplus estate assets would wipe out the state's entire budget deficit."

Ms. Stevens may be correct. However, instead of taxing wealthy people and letting government coffers become filled with cash, there is another approach. Society could give wealthy people a choice: invest in new or existing commerce or pay a huge tax.

Investment can lead to the development of new jobs, products, and services. Just look at what the risk-taking of Bill Hewlett, David Packard, and Steve Jobs did for California.


Richard S. Colman
Orinda

In reference to The Idle Rich Should Give Something Back: Taxes by Elizabeth Lesly Stevens , published April 16, 2011, 1:13 p.m. PDT

Taxing the Rich Gives Government More Money to Waste

Reading Ms. Steven's recent column, positing that the wealthy should step up to the bar and pay more in taxes reminds me of President Kennedy's description of a Russian communist's bargaining technique with Americans: "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is negotiable."

Is it based on the assumption that government agencies and departments, such as Education, Welfare, Housing, et. al. will spend it better than the citizen? Let me begin my rebuttal by positing that the public bureaucracy collectively represent the worst managed elements of the American culture. Giving them more money and authority is akin to giving a blind mad man a bigger gun and more bullets.

As an example, Energy was established in the Carter administration to reduce the Country's dependency on foreign oil. Forty year later, billions spent, a staff in the tens of thousands and we're more dependent than ever on foreign oil. The same is true of every other cabinet level dept. Government inefficiency and incompetence IS the elephant in the room. Within these "employment agencies" here is literally no effort to identify much less employ "best practices." The motivation of front line public employees and their managers---and encouraged by their unions---is simply to grow the work force. Bigger staffs mean more voters to continue the program. Bigger staffs mean more money and influence to the unions. Little if anything ever gets solved.

The underlying problem afflicting government agencies today is that the actual day-to-day operating priorities of public agencies are often in dramatic conflict with their original charters. The goal of the Department of Education, for example, is to improve the quality of education. Interestingly, the Deptartment of Education was elevated to a cabinet position in Carter's administration, and every year since, student scores have declined. Not coincidentally, the criteria employed to measure and reward staff in the Department of Education---as well as most of the other public agencies---are in fact either devoid of objective metrics or they are not taken into proper account.

Here's one of the real reasons why politicians yearn to create new laws and agencies to enforce them:

The agencies are staffed with workers who will vote to expand it

The individuals benefiting from the government largesse---e.g. welfare recipients---will vote to expand it

The agency will utilize suppliers & contractors, the employees of which will vote to expand it

The throngs of lawyers now specializing in the rules and laws established by the agency will vote to expand it

The employee union representing the agency's workers will vigorously lobby to expand it and provide funds to the sponsoring politician(s).

Create a new agency and the sponsoring politician uses government funds to create hundreds of thousand of new voters to kept him/her in offices. What a deal! It's all about creating votes, staying in office and the power and influence that comes with it. Take the new health care program. The mind reels at the bureaucracy that will ensue. As Carl Sagan opined "billions and billions" will be spent on corruption-ridden mediocre program, while the politicians that created it luxuriate in a lush health care program crafted exclusively and ONLY for them.

And Ms. Stevens wants to continue this forceable tithing system that produces questionable results and solves no problems. Nothing given to government ever gets solved. It only gets perpetuated. More people work in government today than in all of manufacturing and in farm labor. And just wait until the healthcare law gets into high gear. Can you hum "Happy Days Are Here Again?" SEIU's Andy Stern has a copy of the lyrics in his wallet.

The top 2% of the U.S. earners pay more than 75% of the taxes; the bottom 50% pay 3%: more than 45% pay no taxes at all. How much more should the top earners pay for the kind of government we're currently getting?

Anthony Gaas
Mill Valley, CA

In reference to The Idle Rich Should Give Something Back: Taxes by Elizabeth Lesly Stevens , published April 16, 2011, 1:13 p.m. PDT

Call to Share the Wealth Displays 'Consummate Gall'

You have displayed the extreme of consummate gall to determine how I should distribute my wealth.

I started in 1955 earning $250.00 per month and opened a savings account with that very first paycheck. That $250 was before taxes. My net retention was significantly less.

I worked hard, being in the office from 6:30 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. I saved and invested -- always paying my taxes. No gimmicks and no tax shelters.

Now at 78 you want to share my wealth. Kindly make love to yourself.

No wonder California is going down the toilet with people like you hiding behind ".org".

With a handshake,

Michael D. Robbins
New York, NY

In reference to The Idle Rich Should Give Something Back: Taxes by Elizabeth Lesly Stevens , published April 16, 2011, 1:13 p.m. PDT

The Heavy Hand of Control Breeds Rebellion, in Oakland and Elsewhere

The social fraying described in Shoshana Walter's article on the city of Oakland's police department can be laid at the feet of a public policy of zero tolerance. This zero tolerance for violations of laws and rules is meted out through severe punishment and described in common parlance as "teaching people the consequences of their actions." In reality, this results in harsh punishments for technical violations. This practice has made California the incarceration nation, in which its state prison population bulges at 170,000 at a cost of $9 billion adding to a state deficit of $25 billion. California has more people in state prison than England and France added together. And the $9 billion does not even include the costs at the local level for county jails, sheriffs, city police and probation supervision; not to mention the court system ($3.75 billion a year budget).

The heavy hand of punishment has been the modus operandi of the California corrections system for more than three decades. Through the years, those at the regular receiving end of this zero tolerance have not been able to change this policy. What they have been successful at is demanding that the same standards be applied to the enforcers, the Oakland police. And as can be expected, the police rank and file don't like receiving harsh punishment for technical violations anymore than the regular residents of Oakland do.

Humans are fundamentally social, cooperative creatures. This is how we have survived. Japan's response to the tsunami is a wonderful, heartening model of the benefits of social cooperation. No looting. People working together to survive.

The heavy hand of control breeds rebellion, as is going on through a wide swath of northern Africa. I hope as Oakland's institutions struggle through this, they recognize that as Obama stated, true justice requires compassion and empathy. Now is the time to implement immediate reforms throughout the corrections system, not just in Oakland, but in California as a whole.

Yolanda Huang, co-counsel for defendants in the Oakland gang injunction lawsuit

In reference to Oakland Police Face Mounting Pressure to Reform on a Tightening Budget by Shoshana Walter , published March 26, 2011, 2 p.m. PDT

City's Gay Community Has Long History

Regarding social groups and networks founding the LGBT community in San Francisco as early as the 1950s, the date is off by at least 10 decades. There were social groups and networks of men who sought and enjoyed sex with other men in San Francisco for at least the previous 100 years. One of the earliest and best documented included singer and songwriter Stephen Massett, who gave the first public performance in the city in 1849; author Bayard Taylor; writer Charles Stoddard, actor Eben Plympton; and Theodore Dwight, later archivist of the Adams family papers and librarian of the Boston public library; and others. These men, all documented lovers of men, remained lifelong friends.

Civil and military court records document in great detail a flourishing social network of gay men in San Francisco, then called temperamentals, during World War I. The discovery of one of these social groups created the first gay scandal in the city's history, eagerly followed and reported by all the daily newspapers. There also are accounts of social groups here during the 1920s and of the growing connections between gay men here and Los Angeles.

The earliest traces of what we would call a gay community can be found before the turn of the 20th Century, first among the bohemians and artists living on Telegraph Hill and later among the residents of the Montgomery block, now site of the Transamerica pyramid, and the surrounding neighborhood in north beach, which in the 1930s was home to three important LGBT clubs: Mona's, the city's first known lesbian bar; Finocchio's; and the Black Cat.

The growth of the LGBT community during the 1930s and 1940s has been well documented and well reported. To state that there was no LGBT community in San Francisco contradicts all known facts about the history of the city.

William Price

In reference to As Social Life Moves Online, Gay Groups’ Membership Dwindles by Scott James , published March 10, 2011, 9 p.m. PST

Circumcision Not Always a Religious Procedure

I'm glad to see some reporting on the proposed circumcision ban in San Francisco, but a few specifics bothered me.

The article was listed in "religion." Men of my generation experienced circumcision as a medical procedure, absent of any religious context. Yet the whole reason why circumcision was adopted by English-speaking Gentiles was specifically to destroy the man's natural sexual functioning. Circumcision is not just a religious issue, it is a major human rights issue.

Speaking of human rights, legal scholars would also be wise to observe the case Prince v. Massachusetts, in which the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that parents do not have a religious right to expose their children to medical harm. As I mentioned, circumcision was adopted by non-Jews specifically to cause harm. Furthermore, even a minimal amputation of functional sexual tissue carries medical risks of infection, hemorrhage, even death.

Also, I appreciate the need for brevity, but the article did not include any of the facts or perspectives that indicate a circumcision ban is necessary. Here are some resources, please give them a moment of your time.

www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org
www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org
www.rapeofinnocence.com

Eli Harrison

In reference to Circumcision Ban Headed for November Ballot, According to Supporters by Aaron Glantz , published February 18, 2011, 2:14 p.m. PST

Report Union Members' Salaries, Pensions

I was very disappointed that in your Sunday New York Times article about San Francisco city employees there was absolutely no mention of what various city workers make. How much do individuals pay for health care? What kind of pensions do average workers get? Because your reporter side-stepped this kind of essential reporting, the reader was the left with the sense--surely unintended on your part--that your paper is protecting the union and the forces that side with them.

David Ruenzel
Oakland, CA

In reference to Pressures Build to Slash Costs of City Employees by Elizabeth Lesly Stevens , published February 12, 2011, 2 p.m. PST

Provide News for Whole Bay Area

As a New York Times reader enjoying the Bay Area reporting, I would encourage you to publish news from the entire Bay Area, not just SF. SF is the best-known part of the Bay Area but only represents a fraction of it, which is continuously decreasing.

SF is no longer the actual center of the BA or Northern California, for that matter. This is reflected in the fixed idea to bring high speed rail all the way to SF with all the problems and huge costs of building the tracks along the Peninsula would bring, instead of ending it in San Jose or in the East Bay with feeder traffic from other parts of the BA using BART or upgraded electric Caltrain with huge savings and negligible loss of travel time to LA. Another, already completed failed and hugely expensive project was the BART connection to the airport, instead of improving Caltrain for a fraction of the cost.

Thus, I hope for more coverage of the whole BA (intended for readers in the whole BA) instead of only focusing on the more "sexy" city and county of SF that might be of more interest to readers outside the BA.

K. Rekola
Mountain View

CPUC Still Investigating PG&E Blast

Regarding your Feb. 5, 2011, column by Jonathan Weber titled, "PG&E Still Sails Smooth, and That’s the Rub," I think it's important to note that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has been investigating the explosion of PG&E's pipeline in San Bruno since the night of the tragedy. We are working full-time on a comprehensive investigation to learn the cause of the explosion and we have already instituted a number of new safety measures. We've created a webpage with documents related to the explosion and pipeline safety so that the public can follow our actions, and at our Feb. 24th voting meeting CPUC President Michael R. Peevey will ask his colleagues to open a comprehensive public process to pull together what we’ve learned and move forward on gas pipeline safety requirements that can serve as a model for the nation. We stand ready to take aggressive enforcement action against PG&E, including levying fines and penalties. Lastly, regarding the California Public Utilities Foundation, it is a 501c3 non-profit that supports seminars and other educational activities to further the goals of the CPUC. It is independent of the CPUC and its staff, and its expenditures will be made public.

Paul Clanon
Executive Director
California Public Utilities Commission

In reference to Where's the Accountability for PG&E's Mistakes? by Jonathan Weber , published February 5, 2011, 2 p.m. PST

Sex-Change Operations Not a Function of Government

When I heard that the city of Berkeley was going to discuss funding sex change operations I just about cried.

I do not understand how ANY elected official can even consider that funding sex change operations for employees is a function of government. This is NOT what we pay tax dollars for.

Our tax dollars are paid to support schools, improve roads and infrastructure, keep us safe from crime and fire and keep the city clean. That is what I expect my tax dollars to pay for. Anything else is complete and utter fiscal irresponsibility on the part of government.

If insurance doesn't cover elective surgery, why should government pay for it? Nobody would pay for my elective plastic surgery and I doubt my insurance covers it.

It is NOT in keeping with a policy of equal opportunity employment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a person is hired or retained on a job.

The fact that Berkeley elected officials are even considering discussing this shows the people that they have lost their grasp on reality.

Mary Walcher
Very concerned citizen

In reference to Berkeley Council Postpones Vote on Funding Sex-Change Operations by Bay City News Service, published January 19, 2011, 6:50 p.m. PST

Jean Quan's Mayoralty Shows Asian Clout

Please be mindful that the citizens of Oakland, California, and Mayor Jean Quan, are the rightful catalyst for any Asian-American clout, and attention that is, and will be received by the " election" of Jean Quan, to be Oakland mayor. The firtst elected Asian-American, U.S. city leader.

Edwin Lee was merely appointed mayor, but as always, our neighbors 10 miles to the west," San Fraudcisco," try to piggy-back on Oakland's progressive move and then claim the attention. Mr. Lee was "given" the mayor's seat. Mrs. Quan had an innovative campaign approach, and worked tirelessly throughout Oakland to gain the votes of Oaklander's. She EARNED it. Mr. Lee, did not.

The east coast may not care, or understand, but we here do. That San Francisco is devoid a lot of the times of any real original thought. This is the city that tried to call an area of their city, "South Beach" years ago. When the closest beach was more than 15 miles away. A city of fraud.

Oakland should be the one receiving the accolades for making history, and San Francisco should get credit for COPYING,and GRANDSTANDING, all in the sake of not wanting Oakland to have any positive spotlight for itself. God forbid the nation finds out we're not just the American version of Beirut, as we are sometimes portrayed. We do live in truth in Oakland, thus why this letter had to be written. When will San Francisco do something original, and stop being Oakland's jealous step-sister?

The truth is: "Jean Quan leads growing Asian-American clout".
Thank you, very much.

R.Schleemer
Oakland,Calif.

In reference to Asians' Political Ascent Brings Lee to Mayoralty by Gerry Shih , published January 15, 2011, 2 p.m. PST

"State Poised to Sell Trophy Buildings..."

As a San Francisco citizen, I was outraged to learn about the sale of our civic treasures to unidentified bidders, as described in your Dec. 26, 2010 article in the Bay Area edition of the Sunday New York Times.

I also was shocked to learn from Ms. Steven's report of the many political figures involved in this giveaway. Particular mention was made of Mr. Blum, who is the husband of our senator, Dianne Feinstein. No mention was made of our mayor, Gavin Newsom, whom we know comes from a very connected real estate family - what is his role in this situation?

The one gleam of sanity you mention seems to be Mr. Scott Soller's suggestion that at least the state would continue to own the land beneath the buildings.

Please continue to investigate this matter. Perhaps you can advise me whom I can contact to show my support for an advantageous - to the city of San Francisco - solution to this situation.

Respectfully,
Anita Margrill, registered architect

In reference to State Poised to Sell Trophy Buildings to Unidentified Investors by Elizabeth Lesly Stevens , published December 25, 2010, 11:33 a.m. PST

'Friends' of Bradley Manning Misguided

In reference to Courage to Resist, the Berkeley organization that has raised money for the defense of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the alleged WikiLeaks leaker:

I would gather from looking at your website that none of you have ever been in the military nor understand what the Uniform Code of Military Justice is.

You are completely misguided and should understand that what Private Bradley Manning did amounts to treason. We are at war right now and whatever punishment he get is going to be justly deserved.

I held a security clearance while serving in the U.S. Navy and what the private did violates so many rules and principles you do not have a clue.

If you think he is being unfairly treated then your organization should also come out supporting the governments of Iran and North Korea as well as Osama bin Laden. You should also be protesting that the psychiatrist who murdered all those people at Fort Hood should be let off also.

Manning signed a contract to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. On that basis alone, he is in violation of his contractual obligations.

My question for you is, yes, the First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees you freedom of speech. But before you open your mouth up to support a traitor maybe you should get your facts straight.

Have you done anything to support your country? I mean have you been in the military. If you have not, then maybe you should go join the military so you can understand that you will be held to a higher standard than you are right now.

Please do not insult every man and woman who has served their country and those who have died for their country so you can make statement not understanding the facts.

If someone does not agree with what they are doing in the military there are ways to get out. Remember there has not been a draft in the US since the early 1970s. Anyone who is in the military volunteered. So if they do something wrong then they should be an adult and take their punishment.

I would venture to say that anyone who is against the wars we are in has never served their country so in my opinion they do not have as you a clue as to what you are talking about.

Sincerely yours,

Bruce C. Gumbert
MMC(SW) USN-Ret

In reference to Alleged Wikileaks Leaker Finds Friends in Berkeley by Aaron Glantz , published December 25, 2010, 1:09 p.m. PST

Napa State Hospital violence

The brutal murder of the Napa State Hospital clinician Donna Gross in October highlights long-standing issues of staff safety, quality of clinical care, and lack of administrative accountability which have been festering at Napa State Hospital for years.

As a staff psychiatrist who resigned from that hospital just over three months ago due to ethical concerns and concern about my own safety, I witnessed the manner in which safety complaints from clinical staff, including from physicians, were swept under the rug by administration. For example, after a patient had severely assaulted another clinician on the unit where Donna Gross and I both worked, fracturing his jaw, it was only after I "made a scene" at a meeting, in which five minutes were devoted to the incident, that the clinical administrator, Carmen Caruso, consented to assign one extra staff person to the 45-bed unit to monitor that assaultive patient. There are many other examples, some from my own direct experience, and any Napa State Hospital clinician can cite their own.

What is the origin of this administrative culture that blithely ignores staff safety? As mentioned in Katharine Mieszkowski’s excellent article posted in The Bay Citizen on December 16, “Napa State Hospital's Grisly Inside Story,” Napa State Hospital has been "under a federal court order to improve conditions for patients” after a 2006 lawsuit alleging civil rights violations of patients. Unfortunately, the implementation of that judgment with the so-called "Enhancement Plan" has resulted in an increase in violence with little if any improvement in clinical care. In my opinion, this is essentially because the private company with which the Department of Mental Health contracted to fulfill this consent judgment has no expertise in treating violent, yet cognitively intact forensic psychiatric patients, a description that applies to the majority of the 900 patients in Napa State Hospital's "secured treatment area" where the recent murder took place. In fact, the primary experience of the clinicians who founded that company is with developmentally disabled patients, who because of their cognitive limitations present a less serious threat to staff than the primarily psychotic or personality-disordered patients found at Napa.

Why this company was engaged to "improve conditions at Napa" is a troubling question worthy of much vigorous inquiry. What is certain is that clinical staff's dissatisfaction with the dictates of the enhancement plan is almost universal, yet little if no modification in the rigid requirements of the Enhancement Plan has even been seriously considered.

After I had already signed on to work at Napa State Hospital, I received a seven-day orientation. One of the few relevant things I learned during that orientation was that the staff members' personal "panic buttons" did not function on the grounds outside of the buildings. Before the Enhancement Plan, this limitation was managed by being much stricter about which patients were given grounds privileges. However, the Enhancement Plan has been interpreted by Napa State Hospital administration as mandating that the hospital function like a "college campus," with many patients moving freely through the secured treatment area as they attend various therapy groups. The same plan requires that every patient, no matter how dangerous or ill, be enrolled in a minimum of 20 hours per week of these therapy groups, resulting in a pressure to enroll as many patients as possible in these groups. This leads to many patients, who under the old standards would remain confined to their units, being free to wander the grounds during daylight hours. It is quite possible that the patient accused of murdering Donna Gross would not have been free to move about before the Enhancement Plan was implemented, and thus her killing would not have happened.

In my opinion, Napa State Hospital will continue to be an unsafe place to work until the Enhancement Plan is abandoned or extensively modified to recognize the extremely dangerous reality of psychotic patients and personality-disordered patients lacking a conscience. This will not be an easy task, given the inherent resistance of a huge bureaucratic structure that for some reason has already invested in an inappropriate plan. However, I believe it is the only way to prevent further horrendous tragedies such as the murder of Donna Gross.

David Brody, M.D., board-certified psychiatrist

In reference to Napa State Hospital's Grisly Inside Story by Katharine Mieszkowski , published December 16, 2010, 9 p.m. PST

Neighbors Respond to "Nimby Rears Its Head Against Wind Power Project"

Because Mr. Upton's article of Friday, Nov. 12 was heavily based on the windpower proponent's point of view, his article is biased against the neighbors, starting with the disrespectful title and continuing with an inaccurate and incomplete description of the situation. Mr. Miller, the project sponsor, has proposed erecting his windmill in his front yard, 12 feet from a busy street, not in his back yard. The article omits facts that explain why Mr. Miller's neighbors and the Miraloma Park Improvement Club rightly oppose his proposed windmill, not because (as Mr. Upton quotes Mr. Miller as having said) they think it is ugly, but because it is architecturally entirely inappropriate for the proposed site, in which it will also be very inefficient.

Design review, required by the Planning Code but omitted by the SF Planning Department on this project, would confirm to any impartial eye that this windmill's height and blade-width would significantly detract from the architectural appeal of nearby homes. Protecting the architectural heritage of one's neighborhood is not "Nimby-ism" (a pejorative that should be eliminated from everyone's vocabulary) but a requirement of the SF Planning Code and a right of San Francisco residents. A moving unit towering 13 feet above a home's roof and placed 4 feet in front of its facade is not appropriate in a neighborhood designed to be architecturally appealing and to afford vistas unencumbered by utilities (all placed by design in the rear yards), green space and undistracted living.

Furthermore, the same model windmill installed about one-half mile away got one-sixth the promised power and so many complaints from neighbors about noise and reflected light pollution that the owner says he wants to remove this unit. The same problems would occur with Mr. Miller's proposed unit on Teresita, because product literature for the Skystream windmill recommends 275 ft horizontal clearance from the house and an average windspeed of 23 mph to obtain the rated energy yield, as well as a 45-foot setback from the boundary of the property for safety and noise/glare curtailment. The proposed two-third acre site, within 30 to 50 feet of neighboring homes, is very far from meeting any of these recommendations. These windmills are designed for use in very large yards in the country and are not acceptable or efficient in a neighborhood with closely placed homes and small yards, like Miraloma Park.

At a recent meeting of the West of Twin Peaks Central Council, an umbrella group of West-side SF neighborhood organizations, Mr. Miller spoke in support of his project. When asked if he would find acceptable a line of 35-foot wind turbines stretching down Teresita Boulevard, he had no response. The Council did: they voted to request the Planning Department to deny this precedent-setting installation. The Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, which includes nearly all significant neighborhood organizations in SF, also voted to request denial of this proposal, and to ask that the Planning Department consider making applications for turbines conditional use and requiring diligent design review, as has been proposed in at least one other municipality and was recommended by a Senior Planner in the Department in 2008.

When wind-power turbines appropriate for dense city neighborhood use -- i.e., small enough, quiet enough and otherwise undistracting -- become available, Miraloma Park will not oppose their use, nor would I expect the widespread opposition, by neighborhoods of all economic strata, that Mr. Miller's proposal has encountered.

Dan Liberthson, Corresponding Secretary, Miraloma Park Improvement Club

In reference to Nimby Rears Its Head Against Wind Power Project by John Upton , published November 11, 2010, 9 p.m. PST