Search the Archive:

December 31, 2004

Back to the Table of Contents Page

Back to the Voice Home Page

Classifieds

Publication Date: Friday, December 31, 2004

Letters to the Editor Letters to the Editor (December 31, 2004)


All candidates supported affordable housing

Editor:

Last week's article with precinct-level analysis of the city council election may have left readers with the impression that Stephanie Schaaf's support of moderately-dense development on the Mayfield site may have hurt her because she fared poorly in the Monta Loma neighborhood.

I think it is more likely that her strong pro-housing stand brought her considerably more votes in other parts of the city than it cost her in Monta Loma.

It's also worth noting that all of the newly elected council members are on record as affordable housing advocates. On the Web site www.smartvoter.org, Tom Means wrote that one of his top three priorities is to develop real affordable-housing options. Laura Macias wrote that she wants to add housing where it fits well within our community, planning affordable housing with 21st century solutions. She also sought and won the endorsement of Advocates for Affordable Housing.

At the same Web site, Matt Pear wrote: The only way to equitably and truly achieve affordable housing is to increase the supply to meet demand. Nick Galiotto was endorsed by the pro-affordable housing Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, as were Macias and Schaaf. In fact, Galiotto listed these environmental groups at the very top of his endorsement list.

When it comes to thinking about housing density, free-market advocates and environmentalists come to the same conclusion: higher density is better for the environment and it brings better financial returns for the landowner. Given that the current dreadful imbalance between jobs and housing was created by the decisions of previous city councils, I hope that the winning candidates will take swift action to bring land use back into balance.
Bruce Karney
Bush Street

Enough killing in the world already

Editor:

We do not want hunting to be going on in our community. We think there is enough killing in the world without having to witness it here.

In our humble opinion, animals are just as precious as we are and deserve to live without humans killing them for sport or for food for that matter.
Carol Benoit and Susanne Stewart
Wildrose Way

Hunters destroy 'God's creation'

Editor:

Should the city restrict access to nearby hunting areas?

Absolutely yes. Hunters are animal terrorists. Hunters make absurd claims of why murdering other beings is their "right" as if animals have no right to exist.

Hunting is a human wrong, just like slavery or the concentration camps. In the slavery era, whites felt they had the right to have slaves and slaves had no rights. In Nazi Germany, white supremacists believed they were the superior race under "God" thus rationalizing the extermination of Jews and other races "inferior" to them.

Hunters likewise rationalize to persecute, stalk, terrorize, maim and murder other living beings under the guise of superiority and difference of species. Hunters invade other species' homes with the sole purpose of ending their existence.

Hunting is cold-blooded murder. Who made hunters God and gave them the power to decide who lives and who dies? The sickening aspect of hunters is that they find pleasure in the destruction of "God's creation."
Alfredo Kuba
Middlefield Road


E-mail a friend a link to this story.


Copyright © 2004 Embarcadero Publishing Company. All rights reserved.
Reproduction or online links to anything other than the home page
without permission is strictly prohibited.