Thanks for exposing that

In San Francisco, the Bay Guardian found "no municipal ordinances whatsoever regarding not-for-profit, everyday nudity," despite asking lawyers and police officers ["The Naked City," 5/19/04].

Alas, we've got one, hidden away in the city's Park Code (not in the Police Code). This little-known code affects only city parks (as defined in section 2.01), so it can't ban nudity on most streets. Nor can a lowly city ordinance affect federal lands, such as Baker Beach or the Presidio.

S.F. Park Code section 4.01 provides, in part, that "no person shall, in any park, without permission of the Recreation and Park Department: ... (h) Expose his or her genitals, pubic hair, buttocks, perineum, anal region or pubic hair region or any portion of the female breast at or below the areola thereof, except that this section shall not apply to children under the age of five years." This wording apparently hasn't changed since 1981, or earlier.

In this ordinance, our supposedly egalitarian and feminist city blatantly treats every female as a second-class person, at least after her fifth birthday.

When will San Franciscans demand that city ordinances be gender-neutral? How long will our city continue, in the 21st century, to criminalize females as a class?

If any San Francisco woman ever decides to lead a campaign against this unfair discrimination, nudist groups will be glad to help. And there are "topfreedom" activists who can show how equal freedom of choice has been achieved in Canada, New York state, and Santa Cruz (see www.tera.ca).

Also, people in many U.S., Canadian, and Australian cities enjoy monthly "nude swim nights," held at indoor pools. Why not in San Francisco?

Tortuga Bi LIBERTY Senior Unlimited Nudes San Francisco

In defense of fuel cells

After reading your recent article "The Road to Nowhere" [5/12/04], I felt that I just had to write in to question a number of inaccuracies and assumptions in your report.

First off, your article only deals with cars as a mode of human transportation. Even if everyone in the United States was to use a bike or train as their primary mode of transport, you still have trucks, which move over 80 percent of all goods in the United States. It is trucking where the vast majority (two-thirds) of all air pollution is created. The technological breakthrough with hydrogen fuel cells is a very significant step forward for the environment, when you realize that the technology will be available for trucking, and more important, airplanes. An airplane's environmental impact is not as well understood as a car's, but it is known that by flying at such high altitudes the pollution they create has a greater impact on the atmosphere.

Also the assumption that people can use bikes as an alternative might be a great idea in California, but it gets very cold in many parts of the country. Bikes are not a practical alternative to cars for most Americans. Additionally, cities like Detroit or Chicago are very large, and unlike the Bay Area it is almost impossible to make them bike friendly due to poor city planning.

Lastly, your statement that Governor Schwarzenegger is somehow motivated by kickbacks from car companies is absolutely absurd. Schwarzenegger is worth many millions, and that he would somehow be persuaded by a kickback of $1.6 million sounds ridiculous. I actually think that because he is already wealthy it makes him much harder to corrupt than an official who has spent their entire career in public service, working for much less then they could get in the private sector.

While I applaud you for calling into question the greater impact that cars have to our quality of life, the switch to hydrogen fuel cells is not something to sneeze at. It will be a major revolution, and the impact will be far and wide. Not only just to the environment, but it has the potential to reshape global politics, since fuel cells will give us an opportunity to greatly reduce our reliance on fossil fuels from the Middle East.

Gregory Kennedy San Francisco

Matthew Hirsch responds: Believe what you want about Arnold Schwarzenegger, but don't be mistaken about the potential of fuel cell technology. It might reduce some vehicle emissions, as I noted in the article, but a life-cycle analysis will show that even fuel cell vehicles generate tons of pollution over time. Meanwhile, they will continue causing severe problems for public health and safety, land use, and transportation.