Letters to the Editor

Registered users may submit a Letter to the Editor after they first log in.


Safety first and foremost. When one is out on the streets after dark, walking, or cycling, it is for your safety that others see you. Driving home Tuesday evening, I encountered a startling experience. As both a San Francisco taxicab driver and survivor of a car crash, I consider safety first and foremost regardless of how one is traveling; walking, or cycling.

I was driving 25 miles per hour on Shore Line Drive between Park and Willow streets. At the post office I noticed movement in the uncontrolled intersection and cross walk. In the darkness, a cyclist dressed in dark clothing with no reflective lights or clothing, was running to the other side of the street, directly in front of me. Fortunately for both of us, I did see him and stopped. It could have been a nightmare for both of us.

Please, if you are out at night, wear white or reflective tape on your clothing for safety’s sake. Money cannot be an issue for why you are not dressed accordingly in the darkness.

There are so many distracted drivers on the road, it is responsible to take your own safety into consideration. I know because I was crushed in a car by a distracted driver not watching the road so I personally know what harm it can do if you are hit as I was. It is a whole lot easier than becoming a statistic, I promise you!

JoanAnn Radu-Sinaiko


In an Op-Ed piece about the school bond ("Why I’m Voting ‘No’ on School Bond", July 10), Mark Greenside made several assertions about me and the school district’s finances that I’d like to address.

First, Greenside said he sent me an email on May 31, but I did not receive that email. He also said many school districts sought bond and/or tax increases recently and that most of those efforts failed. That is not true. On June 3, California voters approved 34 school bond measures and defeated 10.

Greenside also asked several questions about the land deal, on which the City, Alameda Unified School District, and Housing Authority agreed last spring. For instance, he asked why the agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. That was because the agencies were discussing price and terms, as well as the potential for litigation. However, all three public agencies did discuss the agreement at their public meetings, so that community members could comment on it.

Greenside then asked why we did not get appraisals on the properties. To clarify, the former Island High site was appraised for $1.19 million. The Tidelands Parcels were not appraised because as public trust lands, they cannot be sold. As such, a conventional commercial or residential appraisal would not be useful.

The Alameda Point parcels were not appraised because there are neither firm plans for how they will be used nor existing, similar properties against which to compare them. That makes knowing their potential monetary value difficult.

This agreement gets money and property into the hands of the agencies that can make the best of them. In my mind, that is a fiscally, and socially, very responsible transaction.

I appreciate Greenside’s long-standing support of our schools and hope these answers help him with his decision-making.

Kirsten M. Vital

Taking a walk on Crown Beach July 5 was like taking a walk through a landfill. People who helped themselves to a fireworks show on our shoreline saw fit to strew trash all across the beach and lawns.

All credit is due to East Bay Regional Parks staff who rapidly cleaned up the mess with little complaint later that day.

Coho Jerkins