Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for July 20, 2024

Too much workforce housing will choke roads

In the recent commentary by IJ political columnist Dick Spotswood (“Marin should put focus on more workforce housing,” July 10”), he pointed out that 46,000 individuals commute to jobs in Marin. I think Spotswood is implying that, by building workforce housing, we’ll reduce commuter traffic and free up freeways.

But something that most people never realize is those 46,000 commuters coming into Marin likely have families. By building workforce housing and encouraging them to live here, we’re not just talking about moving 46,000 people to Marin. Not all will be single. With families, we could be talking about between 92,000 and 138,000 more people.

Of course, many of these new residents will still need to commute (either more locally or on the freeway) and they will all need to make the same short trips (taking kids to school, going to the grocery store or other local errands) they used to make before moving to Marin. So now, you’re talking about hundreds (maybe even thousands) of new local trips by these new Marin residents.

In my opinion, this is why calls for more workforce housing aren’t all they are cracked up to be. It will be a lot worse for local residents. As my college economics professor noted, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

— Guy Palmer, Mill Valley

Ross Valley side streets too congested this year

With roadwork slowing travel on Sir Francis Drake Boulevard through San Anselmo this summer, I would have hoped that someone in regional planning would have oversight over allowing too many individual side-street projects in nearby neighborhoods.

It appears to me that, in the past two weeks, there has been an uptick in individual tree work and assorted minor construction in Ross, San Anselmo and Fairfax. So, while people are using Center Boulevard in San Anselmo (instead of waiting in what can be long lines of cars on Sir Francis Drake), local homeowners and all the service crews are routinely constricting traffic flow on even the smallest residential streets in the area.

Personally, I think Ross, San Anselmo and Fairfax officials should cooperate in making the construction on Sir Francis Drake palatable for local residents, as well as for those living in West Marin. This could happen easily by banning individual tree work, or any construction, that necessitates blocking any roads anywhere in the area.

We all know what stress does to the body. We hear “patience” all the time. And we were adequately warned that Sir Francis Drake was going to endure a long summer of construction. But still, why are we adding to the stress by allowing random blockages of side streets during the main construction?

Drake was already a congested road. If this continues and residents are forced to sit in the traffic disruptions, then I fear more road-rage incidents might be in the offing.

Please coordinate, cooperate and ease congestion on the local streets during the Drake construction this summer.

— James Shipman, San Anselmo

SFSU handled a tense situation the right way

As a faculty lecturer in San Francisco State University’s Department of Anthropology, I read the recent Marin Voice commentary by Mark Phillips with interest (“Recent student protests can be a teachable moment,” July 8).

Phillips, who is an emeritus professor at the school, calls for more engagement on university campuses to avoid violence and vandalism. To his point, what took place at San Francisco State during recent national demonstrations and violence was just what Phillips called for — a situation where SFSU President Lynn Mahoney used her considerable skills as an educator to transform it into a congress of learning.

To her credit, Mahoney marshaled the faculty and staff to discuss the approach to the students’ tent occupation, demonstrations and strike. She relied on everyone’s good intentions and their desire to resolve the confrontation peacefully. She treated the students with respect and brought considerable patience to the process.

By her leadership, as well as the experience of staff and faculty in San Francisco State’s long history of involvement in social justice, the protest ended peacefully. Actions were taken to satisfy all involved and we all learned how to protect and further the role of the university in a fractured and disorganized time.

— Niccolo Caldararo, Fairfax

Hydrogen is not a good solution for climate crisis

I am writing in response to the recently published Another View commentary by Heather Reams and Rebecca Lorenzen (“Hydrogen is key to fighting climate change, but we must get it right,” July 9). The authors paint a rosy picture about the environmental benefits of hydrogen as a widespread fuel.

However, the nongovernmental organization Food and Water Watch points out that despite claims from the industry that hydrogen will provide a clean source of energy, many experts believe that it’s not a good answer to our climate crisis.

Hydrogen produces noxious pollutants at rates even higher than natural gas, entrenches the fossil fuel industry and will perpetuate the harm already being done to communities experiencing the brunt of the effects of climate change and pollution. In addition, producing hydrogen requires a huge amount of water, which is not good for regions like the western U.S., which already has been experiencing historic drought.

The Physicians for Social Responsibility group’s statement on the topic is direct: “The wildly expensive plans to burn hydrogen-methane blends at our power plants will increase nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution in frontline communities and lock us into a fossil fuel future that will fail to meet necessary climate goals.”

Some in the fossil fuel industry advocate distributing hydrogen using the existing natural gas piping network. This might sound promising at first, until you consider the fact that this piping network is notoriously leaky. Filling it with high-pressure hydrogen could increase the risk of deadly explosions and major health and safety issues.

Hydrogen could drive up the cost for ratepayers who will be forced to pay for expensive hydrogen adaptations to the existing extensive natural gas infrastructure. Instead of investing in hydrogen, we need to dismantle the industry that put us into this climate crisis.

The subject is complicated. Let’s look carefully at the hydrogen option before pursuing.

— Dave Troup, San Anselmo

Supreme Court immunity ruling was the wrong call

I was shocked by the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling (“Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial,” July 2). I believe this court is showing itself to be obviously politicized. How can it get away with going against our country’s earliest promise that all men are created equal, and that the law applies to all of us the same no matter how wealthy you are or what political party you belong to?

Our country fought for its independence from a king’s rule and now it feels as if this court has taken away 240 years of precedence by going against the constitutional statement that no man is above the law. This travesty goes against everything our country stands for.

I understand that, until former President Donald Trump came along, no president needed immunity from prosecution. But, in my opinion, Trump probably committed a treasonous act that led to a siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The courts should be able to decide if that action was indeed an act of treason or not.

Records show that some of these justices are not above taking gifts and other benefits from people who may have a stake in cases on their docket. I think that’s against every norm and ethical responsibility in the court’s history. Those justices should be removed from office immediately.

If we don’t stand up to these politically motivated justices, our democracy will be lost.

— Paul Bartolini, Santa Rosa