By Erin Sherbert
By Erin Sherbert
By Leif Haven
By Erin Sherbert
By Chris Roberts
By Kate Conger
By Brian Rinker
By Rachel Swan
Excellent Article or Litterbox Liner?
Purrrr: We probably would have had to get rid of our cat Charlie if it hadn't been for the excellent advice we repeatedly received from the cat behaviorists at the SF/SPCA a couple of years ago[“A Time to Kill,” 6/11]. Charlie was a very aggressive kitten and attacked us all the time. Our arms and legs were always covered in bites and scratches. We did everything we were advised. The best advice we were given was to get another cat for Charlie to play with. The volunteers at the SPCA helped us to pick out a cat that has a personality that is a perfect fit with Charlie's aggressive behavior.
That was over a year ago. We haven't been attacked by Charlie since. The scary thing is that if we had given up and returned Charlie to the SPCA because of his bad behavior today, it sounds like he would have to be euthanized.
Hissss: I've been a volunteer at the SPCA for the last year and I have seen nothing but hard work and sacrifice from the people who work and volunteer there. I've had people from our veterinary services come to Maddie's Pet Adoption Center crying because they've had to perform euthanasia on an animal too sick or hurt to be saved. It's not something we do lightly.
There have been a lot of changes with the SF/SPCA's new president, and I don't have the insight or authority to speak to most of them. However, as an SPCA volunteer, a San Francisco citizen, and a lifelong animal lover, I can honestly say this is one of the most reckless and sensationalist pieces of writing I have read on the subject of animal welfare.
I have no doubt this will affect how people think about the SPCA. If we lose donations, adopters, or anything else that helps us find homes for thousands of animals every year, I hope John Geluardi realizes the terrible impact he's had.
This City Planner Not for Sale
You impugn with impunity, sir: I enjoy your paper, but have to object to a portion of your recent article titled "Pay to Sway" [News, 5/28 ]. I'm quoted as saying you can "get a lot done" with your adversaries at the annual Friends of City Planning event. The reporter [Joe Eskenazi] shortened my comments to him about how I enjoy discussing non-planning topics with non-public-official "adversaries," and he preceded the quote with not-so-subtle (but very unfair) references to developers doing deals with city planners who've been compromised by developer pledges of funds for alleged planner "junkets," and with free drinks.
This not only impugns an honest and hardworking planning department, but it also impugns progressive board members of FOCP and the development community which contributes to the FOCP, so that city planners can attend seminars and obtain computer hardware and software that make the department more efficient.
Moreover, the thoughts I gave to the reporter that were edited out would have made it clear that I was speaking about sharing our life stories with all special-interest groups, whether slow-growth or pro-growth (and not just city planners), using this annual event as a place to talk about our differences and find common ground.
City planners are not anybody's adversaries, and business deals with city planners (or between slow-growthers and property owners) were far from my mind. As one of the department's most seasoned and respected planners correctly states in the article, city planners are certainly not for sale.
Correction: In last week's Sucka Free City ["Far Left Turn," 6/11, by Benjamin Wachs], we incorrectly stated that Carole Migden came in third in the June 3 primary election for the state Senate. She came in second. SF Weekly regrets the error.