Meters bad choice of revenue stream

Have you noticed that the City of Oakland is in the process of installing 31 new parking meters along Moraga Avenue, adjacent to Montclair Park and the recreation center office?

Henceforth, parking there will no longer be free. It will cost $2 an hour to play baseball, basketball, tennis, volleyball, flag football, etc. Once more, picnicking, and attending various children's, adult and senior classes will all be very expensive. And all those walkers who often gather at the rec center for organized hiking trips will have to pay to exercise.

Consider the impact paid parking will have upon thousands of people who attend special events such as the many art, beer-and-wine and music festivals and the crowds of people who watch the annual Halloween parades.

Across the street from Montclair Park, many workers in the village park along here free, all day long. It is likely people who can't afford to pay for parking at one of the metered spots may well try to find free parking here, which of course would be upsetting for the village workers if they can't find a parking space.

What we have here is a failure to communicate about the consequences of installing new meters. This is just another cash-cow effort by Mayor Quan to raise money for the city, similar to her promoting extended parking to 8 p.m. a few years ago, which was a total disaster.


Advertisement

I suggest she and all others responsible for installing these 31 new parking meters take a serious look elsewhere for rich cows to milk -- such as the Port of Oakland, the airport, Dreyer's Ice Cream, the various sports teams and, of course, the numerous prospering and rich real estate firms now cashing in on record sales in Montclair.

Michael Gbrich

Oakland

Next week, each day -- never forget 9/11

The morning of Sept. 11, 2001, began with a beautiful sunrise over lower Manhattan, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and a quiet field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. By the time the sun set that day, we were a nation in shock, horror and mourning and at war with people and an ideology who hate us because of our freedom and way of life.

Next Thursday we will remember a very solemn day for America. We must never forget the 3,000 innocent victims -- men, women and children who died that day just because they went to work or boarded an airplane, firefighters and rescue workers who entered the buildings knowing they would never walk back down the stairs alive and the families of the victims who will have to live with the horror of their loved ones' deaths for the rest of their lives.

When we remember 9/11 this year, we have do more than just light a candle, attend a memorial service, say a prayer -- 9/11 is our wake-up call, and we need to keep the message of that day alive. When the Bush administration was confronted on Sept. 12, 2001, with the question "Do we fight the war over there or wait for them to come here?" President Bush knew the correct answer. Our president today still has no plan to protect America. We cannot become complacent.

On Sept. 11, we remember a sad day, those we lost and we also remember our military who continue to risk their lives every day to protect our freedom, especially those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom.

We must never forget 9/11.

Roseann Slonsky-Breault

Oakland

Why no cell tower safety challenges?

Oakland hills residents' battle with AT&T is being fought on valid concerns about fire danger and property values. In addition to these concerns, people should also be able to ask about health issues associated with cell phone towers. Unfortunately, such concerns were outlawed when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act in 1996; section 704 explicitly outlaws health safety as a valid challenge to placing of these towers.

It's reported that the wireless industry spent $50 million to influence the wording of the TCA, according to Martin Blank in his book "Overpowered" (2014). Blank, a professor at Columbia University, has a Ph.D. in physics, and another in a biologically-related field, so his belief that cell phone radiation may damage DNA should at least be considered. (He does not imagine that cell phones will be banned. Instead, he simply suggests that some safeguards be put in place.)

If the wireless industry really believed their products to be safe, why were they so eager to bar citizens from questioning? It makes a person wonder.

Olivia Eielson

Oakland