Dean's the real deal

Norman Solomon's piece on Howard Dean is a prime example of the position some progressives take of burying their heads in the sand to political reality, and pipe-dreaming of socialist nirvana [Opinion, 8/27/03]. It's time to wake up folks, face reality, and aggressively address our number-one goal: defeating George W. Bush in 2004. In our flawed capitalist society that means getting behind the best Democrat, who speaks to most of our concerns and who has a realistic chance of winning. That candidate is Howard Dean. Kucinich is a fine man, but he has no chance. In the last quarter he raised a mere $1 million or so and is only polling at 1 percent in New Hampshire. His is but a symbolic campaign now, and progressives have to ask themselves a hard question: do you want to make a statement in 2004 or do you want to kick Bush out of the White House?

Dean's campaign is one of insurgency. He is shaking the very foundation of the Democratic Party, with no corporate sponsorship, only the support of hundreds of thousands of grassroots volunteers all across the country.

The progressive community must rally behind Dean and keep his momentum going so he can first defeat the pro-war Democratic establishment before they try to sabotage his candidacy. Dean needs the help of every progressive in America to take back the Democratic Party. Then together, we can take our country back and evict Bush from the White House.

Richard Marracq

Redwood City

The real traffic-circle story

Your Sept. 3 article "Traffic Circles Visit the Haight" misses a good part of the story.

Both the Haight Ashbury Neighborhood Council and the Buena Vista Neighborhood Association have devoted meeting time and attention to the issue, but neither was mentioned in the story.

The basic point of view of the story was that of the driving "commuter" (including bicyclists), interested only in using Page Street to get through the Haight-Ashbury. Little attention was given to the impact of the circles on people who live in the neighborhood and use the cross streets (Ashbury and Clayton) as pedestrians.

Clayton and Ashbury Streets are main connectors, for both cars and pedestrians, to Oak Street and the Panhandle, especially the Panhandle playground on Oak, between Clayton and Ashbury. Pedestrians (especially children) are soft and cars (and bicycles) are hard, and the two only mix with bad results – unless the speed of the car (and bicycle) is regulated, something the traffic circles simply do less well than the four-way stop signs they replaced. Vehicle speed has increased to unsafe levels northbound on Clayton and Ashbury, as commuting drivers have learned how to speed turn through the circles, now without stop signs, especially when a green light beckons at Oak Street. Near misses are common. Indeed, four of the metal standards in these two circles have already had to be replaced after being hit by speeding cars.

Yet here is the rub: the circles are funded by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, which doesn't like stop signs, as they are considered more "polluting" than nonstop intersections. In a case of "government by grant" the Department of Traffic and Parking made less than clear to residents that stop signs were not part of the deal as a condition of the grant. Thus the terms of the grant, and not the reality of the project, will no doubt weigh heavily in DPT's recommendation.

Certainly the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition's "dream" of a "bike boulevard" on Page Street should not come at the price of pedestrian pain. Traffic circles exist in some numbers in St. Francis Wood, and nearly all of them have stop signs. Why can't the Haight-Ashbury have both as well?

Calvin Welch

San Francisco

Did Gonzalez push IRV?

When I read Matt Gonzalez's critique of the Secretary of State's Office implying Kevin Shelley's sabotage of instant-runoff voting, "I don't think they've taken the steps they could to make this happen," I was taken aback ["Barely Alive," 8/13/03]. There were numerous phone calls and messages in early 2003 from his own constituency of Greens, progressive Democrats, and labor urging him to work with us to ensure the implementation of IRV within the time permitted by law. In most cases, our calls went unanswered. We never received a supportive response from him, and as a consequence, we began our own organizing.

By March we had formed the Ad Hoc Committee to Support IRV. Among our efforts was an April press conference to be held on the steps of City Hall. Via his legislative aide, Gonzalez sent word to a diverse group of organizers meeting in the Green Party office that publicizing the city government's glacial movement toward IRV implementation would only hinder the progress of delicate contractual arrangements being negotiated by the city attorney, the Department of Elections, and the software vendor Election Systems and Software.

As president of the board, he has the opportunity to rectify these errors. He can establish a citizens task force that takes the lead in neighborhood outreach and education, and propose legislation whereby the Board of Supervisors allocates specific funds to hire a temporary project manager and staff to implement IRV. The mandate would be completion of all preparations, except community outreach, by March 31, 2004. This project must be followed by the appropriate board committee thereby ensuring success.

Jonee Levy

Ad Hoc Committee to Support IRV