Letters to the Editor

A former NIMBY speaks out:As one who has been active in neighborhood politics for 20 years, I must sadly agree with Matt Smith's assessment of those who fight new housing construction at any cost ["Back to the Future," May 24].

The eastern neighborhoods' industrial blight preservation legislation stops new housing in its tracks in favor of some twisted fantasy of a blue-collar revival, even though the railroads that once served the factories have long since left town. But the Potrero Hill old-timers want to shut out new families just the same.

The Richmond neighbors, on the other hand, would rather look at a decaying old hulk of an ugly theater than take a chance on some old folks moving to the neighborhood who don't have much money. Rich old people tend to hate poor old people, it would seem.

I am truly embarrassed by their behavior — all of my arguments in defense of NIMBYs over the years have just vanished.

Barbara Meskunas
San Francisco

Joining a big crowd on the road to hell:Matt Smith correctly points out that San Francisco politics are based on the Utopian Vision — being able to imagine a desired future of harmony and prosperity. This is, after all, the hallmark of liberals.

Matt is also correct in suggesting that when the Utopian Vision ignores practical matters (common sense; human nature), not only do things not get done, but often harm is done (rent control, less reliable alternative-fuel buses, building moratoriums).

Although Matt is not shy in pointing out pratfalls, he nevertheless is a liberal at heart. He accepts the premise that since we are all created equal, government should be working toward equality of result. The left calls this "moral good" or "social justice."

When Bernal Gateway Apartments offered 160 subsidized units under Section 8 public housing, there were 27,000 people on the housing list in San Francisco. Pundits and progressives were united: We are not doing enough to satisfy people's housing needs. Not so long ago, Bolsheviks in Russia were making similar arguments.

"They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." That was how one Russian described the collapse of the Soviet Union 70 years after the revolution.

When I was a renter, I loved rent control; voted for it every chance I got. It wasn't that I thought the landlord had a moral obligation to subsidize my rent. I was simply selfish. The tragedy of the commons is that an individual might gain the world while his community loses its soul.

The problem with moral relativism is that without absolute values, one can indulge self-interest, call it "moral right" or "social justice," and be content that some greater good is being served when perhaps this is not so.

Racial discrimination is wrong ... unless. The killing of the unwanted is wrong ... unless. The taking of private property is wrong ... unless.

Matt Smith is full of good intentions, and aren't we all? Matt can write a pratfall story with the best of them. Who knows — maybe in another 10 years Matt Smith will move on to other concerns.

Paul Burton
San Francisco

After all, it is called carsharing:We wanted to respond to your Best of 2006 feature, which named City CarShare "Best Reason to Sell Your Car" [May 17]. We think the criteria you cited for your decision — "It's a nonprofit, not a get-rich-quick scheme, and is likely to outlast all those copycat outfits we've seen cropping up lately" — misses a much larger point: the significant public benefit of multiple carsharing operators.

Independent national research (Transportation Research Board/Nelson-Nygaard, 2005) has shown that each shared car takes up to 15 cars off the road; that more than 60 percent of carshare members sell or avoid buying a car; that more than 60 percent increase use of public transit. By tripling the number of shared cars and adding thousands of members in the Bay Area — just since September 2005, the two new operators have accelerated the public benefit of carsharing. Why wouldn't you want more providers if the result is fewer cars and cleaner air?

In addition, the presence of three competitors will also benefit carsharing members. When companies compete, customers win. The best way to ensure that Bay Area residents get the best service, the most convenience, and the lowest price is via competition.

As a point of fact, Flexcar is the first carshare operator in the United States. Flexcar's roots go back to 1998 in Portland and 1999 in Seattle. City CarShare was started in San Francisco in 2001. In its eight years of operation, Flexcar has offered affordable mobility to all income levels and has won numerous awards for its contributions to sustainable communities in the regions it serves.

Finally, we hope that next year you will choose more relevant criteria when choosing the "Best Of," such as convenience, customer service, price, or other issues that impact the users of the service, rather than the operating structure of the companies.

Dana Beard
General Manager, Flexcar
San Francisco

We couldn't hear over all that singing:I was delighted to see your selection of the Bow Bow Cocktail Lounge as having San Francisco's "Best Karaoke." Yours was a good review of a good bar with great karaoke. But you misnamed the "Karaoke Meister" (emcee) there. His name is Fosin, not Folsom.

Fred Chase
San Francisco