Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for Nov. 5, 2023

More housing in Fairfax will lead to bad traffic

I am writing in regard to the article published Oct. 29 with the headline “Fairfax plans review of final housing element in December.”

Town housing element consultant Andrew Hill states “minor things that have to be tweaked.” I can only assume he means, although never mentioned, the large number of vehicles that I must assume will be joining the mass of existing vehicles on the only two roads into and out of Fairfax.

I am concerned that new housing in Fairfax will lead to untenable traffic on Center and Sir Francis Drake boulevards. Approving a plan for as many as 490 more homes in the next eight years — considering that most households here have two cars each — makes for a predictable disaster. The jam (especially when all three schools get out at the same time) is already bad.

— The Rev. Jan Heglund, Fairfax

Commission needed to acknowledge opposition

Recently, the Mill Valley Planning Commission addressed the proposal of the former downtown Bank Of America building to be used for a private club (“Mill Valley commission approves downtown private club,” Oct. 26).

Anyone attending was allowed two minutes to comment. There was an overwhelming number against the proposal, mostly centering around exclusivity and how it doesn’t represent the ideals of the residents of Mill Valley. Public comments were addressed, 29 people commented and it took more than an hour to complete. More than 17 of the public comments were opposed to this issue.

The committee approved the proposal 5-0. That being the result, why does the committee bother taking public comment? It appears to have no impact.

The petition opposing this issue listed 750 signatures at the time of this meeting. In a town with a population numbering over 14,000, the petition showed strong opposition. Public opinion should have been addressed.

During deliberation, each commissioner commented before voting. It sounded to me like four of five commissioners had made their decision before listening to public opinion. One member even read from a prepared statement that clearly illuminated the fact that the decision was made before considering public response.

From my perspective, the committee operated as if there was no opposition. That was disappointing.

— Joel Symmes, Mill Valley

580 traffic not changed by new lane configurations

In his recently published letter to the editor, Bob Keller wrote that reducing lanes through the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge toll booths relieved congestion on the foot of the bridge. He is right. However, doing so just backed up traffic on Interstate 580 through Richmond.

At any rate, he is right that the bike-lane experiment on the bridge needs to end. The benefits for the few bicyclists who use it need to be weighed against the many daily commuters and Richmond residents abused by the smog created by idle traffic waiting to get on the bridge.

— Bill Hess, Greenbrae

Announce ceasefire now to end cycle of death

I am adding my voice to those calling for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war. Giving money to Israel is not the solution. Indeed, it will only widen and prolong the war, increasing casualties and suffering on all sides.

Instead, we should give money to the United Nations to establish an international peacekeeping force and an international commission to work out a long term solution: either a two state solution or one state in which the Palestinians have equal rights and opportunities.

It is understandable that Jewish people would want a homeland after the horrors of the holocaust, but it makes no sense that it should be at the expense of the Palestinians who had nothing to do with the holocaust. The conditions of poverty, extreme crowding and apartheid need to end.

It will take an international commission to help set this up and a long-term commitment of an international peacekeeping force to maintain it.

— Dr. Ann Troy, San Anselmo

Ceasefire can’t come until Hamas is gone

Thank you to Marcus Gerstein for writing the recently published Marin Voice commentary (“Hamas must pay before ceasefire is granted,” Oct. 30) and providing such a concise explanation.

There should be no ceasefire until Hamas is neutralized and removed. Gerstein is right that waiting will also benefit Palestine.

— Karen Polivy, Mill Valley