The latest county survey (“Marin survey outlines residents’ top priorities, with housing in lead,” Nov. 12) says residents want the county government to focus attention on housing, homelessness and climate change. In apparent contrast, “diversity, equity and inclusion” issues tied for next to last.
You’d think our residents are callous. We’re not. The confusion comes from mixing apples and oranges. Housing, homelessness and climate change are visible physical realities. Diversity, equity and inclusion are qualities, very much like trust and openness. You get them (or not) by how you do what you do; how you create housing, how you approach homelessness and how you address climate change.
An excellent melding of “the what” and “the how” is the recently completed and now occupied Homekey project on 1251 S. Eliseo Drive in Greenbrae. Over two years, the project developers, in cooperation with the county, developed an extensive outreach, communication and participation process. Brilliant local leadership from Supervisor Katie Rice and her tireless aide Nancy Vernon converted initial fear and resistance to broad understanding and support.
It’s confusing to mix ranking what we do with how we do it. Yes, I want us to focus on housing, homelessness and climate change, and I very much want it to be done in a way that includes diversity, builds equity and involves those affected.
— Barry Phegan, Greenbrae
It still feels like Marin is full of entitled “not in my backyard” people. I know many feel this way, but I find the pushback against new housing to be extremely hypocritical. What do these “nature lovers” (I know they are — they told me so) think their property looked like before their home was built?
Marin neighborhoods filled with luxury homes didn’t grow by themselves. The cognitive dissonance must make it difficult to enjoy all that open space.
— James Quigley, San Rafael
I am writing in regard to the future of the bike and pedestrian path on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (“Richmond-San Rafael Bridge gridlock frustration stokes bike path debate,” Nov. 12).
I’ve commuted across that bridge for almost 40 years. I’ve observed that most of the commuters come from eastern and northern Contra Costa County, as well as Solano County. They have round-trip commutes of 40 to 70 miles. Realistically, it will never be possible for the typical commuter to travel by bicycle.
Therefore, I think that on weekdays the westbound third lane should alternate between a car lane and an emergency/maintenance lane. This is how the eastbound third lane has operated for several years.
In addition, I think that there should be long-distance express buses for East Bay commuters. Golden Gate Transit has already been doing this in the North Bay for many decades.
Finally, any continuing trial of the bike and pedestrian lane should be limited to weekends, since that’s when it gets the most use.
— Andrea Valentine, San Rafael
I am writing in regard to the recent IJ news article about the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (“Richmond-San Rafael Bridge gridlock frustration stokes bike path debate,” Nov. 12), as well as the staff editorial published the same day (“All must accept that few cyclists want to ride Richmond Bridge,” Nov. 12).
The editorial echoed the all-too-common sentiment that the issue is “bicyclists vs. drivers (and ordinary citizens).” It definitely implies that removing the bike path could help westbound traffic congestion on the bridge in the morning.
It should be noted, however, that the meeting covered in the news article started with a detailed analysis of historical and present-day traffic patterns. The data made it clear that simply opening a third westbound lane to traffic would not make much of a difference for the morning rush hour. This is largely because of the bottleneck near the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard exit on the Marin side.
Additionally, regarding the air pollution that regrettably occurs along the highway — such as the stretch of Interstate 580 through Richmond leading up to the bridge — studies show that the bike lane is not to blame. I worry that increasing the speed of traffic on the bridge would actually make the pollution from the cars worse, not better.
— Dave Troup, San Anselmo
