City should avoid destroying trees
Regarding the recent article: "Fight over view may end soon," the city of Oakland apparently claims that its "view ordinance" obligates it to destroy trees on city property. In this case, one property owner wants a forested view and another wants a treeless view. Why is Oakland obligated to choose one side over the other? Why don't these property owners have at least equal rights?
In this case, the trees should break this tie. Destroying these trees will set a dangerous precedent. Oakland will be obligated by this decision to destroy trees on its property whenever a property owner claims their view is obstructed by the growth of trees.
When are we going to take climate change seriously? Must we all drown before municipalities understand that destroying trees releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which contributes to climate change?
California law (AB 32) obligates cities to reduce greenhouse gases. Yet Oakland destroys trees for trivial reasons such as views and the fact that most are nonnative.
Deforestation is now a major contributor to climate change, representing about 20 percent of global carbon emissions. Emissions from transportation are responsible for only 10 percent of greenhouse gases.
Thanks for quick removal of signs
I was stopped at the red light at the corner of Mission Boulevard and Niles Canyon Road the morning after the election about 7:30 a.m. Bacon -- or someone who looked just like him -- was there removing his signs from the fence.
Sometimes many months go by with campaign signs still posted. Bacon is showing good character by his quick attention to the cleanup after the election. Congratulations to Vinnie Bacon.
Comic strip has no reader value
How much longer will this paper subject us to the comic strip Mallard Filmore?
Although it is interesting to see the mental gymnastics of the neoconservatives, the educational value disappeared long ago, and the entertainment value is quickly waning.
Surely there is some deserving readership in an area of the country that still watches Fox News. If polled, I suspect the good people of the East Bay would be more than happy to make a generous donation of this comic strip to some wanting newspaper.
Voters didn't seem too open minded
If the citizens of the Bay Area are so open minded, why are almost all of their votes for the same candidates?
Case in point: the posting of one polling place in Oakland listed 370 votes for one candidate and a total of 15 votes for all others combined.
Would not a truly open-minded group support a broad cross section of candidates?
Supports illegal dumping law
I enthusiastically support the city of Hayward's new illegal dumping ordinance, which holds landlords accountable to remove items dumped in the parking strip directly in front of their apartment complexes or pay a fine.
In my high-density Hayward neighborhood, piles of dumped furniture continue to appear in the parking strips directly in front of the same multifamily apartments each month.
The city, and taxpayers, spend $300,000 annually to haul away these items, which are placed there either by tenants of these buildings or by landlords clearing out abandoned possessions when tenants vacate.
Financial responsibility will now be squarely where it belongs, with landlords whose job it is to manage the landlord-tenant relationship. Simply put, this is a cost of running a rental property business. Landlords know who is vacating and can use security deposits to hold tenants more accountable.
Many landlords are responsible, many others are not. The hefty fines will encourage many absentee landlords to take a more active role in working with their tenants to avoid dumping problems in the first place.
Glassbrook neighborhood cleanup team Hayward