Letters to the Editor

You go, girl:Another stellar article by the Bay Area's hippest observer ["You, Too, Can Be in Movies!," by Silke Tudor, July 16]. I just love how you juxtaposed me with the Paramount (class vs. crass). I feel so proud! Nice choice of photo, too (and good timing, since the big turtle returned the next night).

It's also about time someone noticed that this whole alternative filmgoing scene is thriving, and the hub is right here. I think it might kind of dovetail with the resurgence of interest in burlesque, another retro revival that flies in the face of the multiplex mentality. I knew all this was going on, but to see it all covered in one big article really drives it home -- you're ahead of the curve, baby.

Will the Thrill
Via the Internet

So, um, does the gorgeous little gumdrop have any chops?:I was amazed that in five pages of writing about the up-and-coming pop phenomenon Natalise, Ben Westhoff did not once mention the singer's voice or actual musical talent ["Of Love and Natalise," July 9]. Apparently the author went to great lengths to research his subject, but the only descriptors we get are about her flat stomach and toned body, her cute little crooked front tooth, and the golden highlights in her brown hair.

The point about Natalise potentially becoming the first Asian-American pop star was well made, as was the disparity between her Stanford education and her fluffy lyrics. But come on: Couldn't you have at least pretended that talent matters? Would a male singer have received the same treatment? Think of the message this article sends and the stereotypes it supports. I would expect more from a progressive publication in San Francisco!

Heidi Lang
Oakland

More in-law units would benefit the old and disabled:I thoroughly enjoyed Matt Smith's column about Supervisor Peskin's secondary-units bill ["In-laws You Can Live With," July 9]. My first apartment in San Francisco was a little jewel of an in-law that I didn't realize was "illegal" until the cable man pointed out that a "legal" apartment would have its own unit number. I lost it in an owner move-in eviction, but I've been pro-legalization ever since.

One advantage of in-laws is that they are usually on the ground floor, hence they are good for persons with limited mobility (elderly or disabled). I believe many homeowners who would want to add legal in-law units will want to do so to help out elderly or disabled relatives.

Victoria Tedder
Via the Internet

The parking argument against in-laws is a red herring:Thanks for Smith's column promoting the proposed law to allow up-to-code in-law apartments. I also support this proposal for most of the reasons he put forward. Please accept that what follows is not intended as criticism, but just as a constructive contribution to the issue. I'll continue reading Smith's column and recommend it to others. (Got that, bosses? Continue the guy's column and raise his salary.)

However, I think it is less likely to succeed unless we deal directly with the arguments the anti-infill folks will use:

1) The most important problem is parking. By some definition, everyplace in S.F. is "within 1,200 feet of a transit corridor." Muni lines are set up to prevent anyplace from being more than two or three blocks from a Muni stop (frankly, Muni could probably run more frequently and therefore take more drivers out of their cars if this standard was lowered a bit, but that's another letter). Unless "transit corridor" is defined to include only stops with a minimum frequency of every five minutes (lines 14, 22, 30, 38 ...), the exception will consume the rule.

In North Beach and the Mission, parking is a nightmare. There are in fact still some landlords and homeowners who have not yet eliminated their garages because they can't legally. Parking in these areas will descend one circle of hell.

Unfortunately, since we are dysfunctional San Franciscans, we'll probably end up instead legislating "parking-impacted zones" in which infill in-law units will not be legally permitted. This will do two things: a) create employment for lawyers before the Planning Commission, trying to get exceptions (the Bar Association thanks you); and b) prevent permitting in areas which are most transit-oriented already (i.e., they're parking-impacted). The Mission and North Beach will end up without any units being made safer. The Avenues will grow nicely, except perhaps in places where it's easy to catch Muni.

I think S.F. Tomorrow or other such groups should whip up a quick report to define what would likely work -- perhaps Matt Smith could dig up some data on what works from his corporate masters' files in other cities (ya gotta get some benefits from working at a franchise :-)).

2) The straw man: property value. This argument is so bogus it hardly merits attack. Clearly this proposal would raise property values, like any zoning that allows more development. What people are really against is the destruction of beautiful old homes to put up Developer's Specials.

David Wright
Downtown