All the Way With RDA
The feature article analyzing the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency's finances was very insightful ("The Redevelopment Sinkhole," Feb. 4). But it failed to grasp the basic reason for the existence of any redevelopment agency. It is not to "make a profit," whether defined as tax revenues or real estate deals. It is rather to accomplish vital civic goals which private-sector economic development alone cannot or will not do in the course of conventional urban development.
This is why, for example, the Transbay Terminal project -- a hideously expensive downtown "big money" deal that would benefit big real estate developers most of all -- is being scaled back while instead the mayor justifiably proposes directing far more resources to southeast San Francisco, a community that has never shared in the prosperity which has so visibly transformed downtown in the last 30 years.
The article also failed to accurately describe the new system of financial fire walls which the mayor and agency Executive Director Jim Morales are establishing so that in the future each new redevelopment project -- Mission Bay, Treasure Island, the Emporium site, and others -- has to be completely financially self-sufficient. No tax increment funds generated in other project areas will be used, for example, for Mission Bay's costs.
Finally, as a future member of the Treasure Island Development Authority Commission, with my particular goal of assuring full implementation of that project's precedent-setting "homeless services component" -- a comprehensive plan to creatively adapt this former military base's unique resources to the employment, housing, economic development, and community-building needs of homeless San Franciscans -- please hear me. Treasure Island is never going to be some "cash cow" for other redevelopment areas. Its future infrastructure needs alone will require more than $100 million of investment before any large-scale new commercial development can proceed.
John Elberling, Executive Vice President
TODCO (Tenants and Owners Development Corp.)
San Francisco
Cultural Lobotomy
San Francisco, like many American cities, has developed a nasty habit of plowing over its history, its heritage ("Boondoggle by the Bay," Jan. 28). It is a young city, comparatively, but the rate at which San Francisco devours remaining signs of historical character far exceeds most other cities in America. This self-cannibalization only fuels the continuing Disney-fication of San Francisco.
We live in a small city which overflows with diverse cultures. Do we really need to fill each remaining vacant crevice with entertainment megaplexes to draw more people, while in actuality making the city less of a place? According to the people planning new multiplex cinema destinations, Treasure Island and Angel Island development, and a Grateful Dead theme park, we do.
I believe that the last thing San Francisco needs is another cultural lobotomy like Pier 39.
Scot Nortrom
Via Internet
Soul-Stealing Sutter
As a volunteer labor coach at Alta Bates Labor and Delivery, I had to attend an orientation at which a Sutter representative made what in my eyes was a scandalous speech. Right there and then, before reading articles about this organization, I felt disgusted by their message, which was essentially: money, money, money. And I had to sign a Sutter Health form agreeing to work for them. I was seething.
It is a shame that the marvelous staff of Labor and Delivery at Alta Bates is subjected to the open abuse of Sutter Health. It is an outrage that such a mentality is the guiding philosophy of a hospital. I applaud the fact that certain hospitals that fell into their trap are attempting to regain their freedom ("Sutter's Giant Sucking Sound," Jan. 21; "Oh, Baby," Bay View, Jan 28). I hope all the facilities managed by the coldhearted Sutter Health will be able to get back their souls.
Nathalie Lajarige
Oakland
Correction
In our Jan. 7, 1998, issue, a mistake in choice of graphics created a false impression in the opinion column titled the Grid ("Union Disorganizing"). The column dealt, in part, with attempts by Service Employees International Union Local 790 to organize workers at the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. The graphic chosen to illustrate that column showed leaflets criticizing management of the AIDS Foundation; the cutline for that graphic suggested the leaflets were connected to Local 790 organizing efforts. The leaflets were not published by SEIU Local 790. SF Weekly regrets the error.
