Submissions/Letters to the editor policy

The Guardsman encourages feedback from our readers. We will attempt to publish letters to the editor as soon as our publication schedule allows.

We offer the following guidelines to readers for submissions:

Letters should be signed with at least a first and last name, or The Guardsman will not be able to publish the letter. Also, please indicate if you are a student or a member of the faculty at CIty College.

Please include your name, phone number, and address along with your submission: The Guardsman will attempt to contact you to verify the authenticity of your submission.

The Guardsman reserves the right to edit letters to the editor for length; please try to keep submissions to 200 words or fewer.

The Guardsman will be unable to publish submissions that do not meet the standards of our publication, which include, but are not limited to:

incoherence, personal attacks, vulgarity, profanity (this includes expletives or letters followed by symbols or dashes), obscenity, commercial promotion or “plugging” a person, product or service and impersonations.

Letters addressed to individual writers may also be published and the writer, section editor and/or The Guardsman’s editorial board may, at their choosing write a response to be published alongside any letters received.

The Guardsman reserves the right to pubish and/or republish submissions in any form.

If wish to give feedback directly to The Guardsman but would rather not have your letter published, specify so in your letter.

Submissions or Letters to the editor can be submitted online via our contact us page, or by mail or fax.

2 thoughts on “Submissions/Letters to the editor policy

  • February 18, 2017 at 1:54 pm
    Permalink

    Trump’s Grandstand Distraction Plan to Nuke North Korea

    This is not a joke. We have been peace activists since the days of the Cold War. The current heavily conflicted international scene terrifies us what with 20,000 nukes floating around and only a bare fraction of them needed to kill off the whole lot of us. Together Christians, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists and communists will be roasted to death or slow bake microwaved over 60 days of agonizing radiation sickness, that horror avoided only by drinking the Cool Aid, a fun sight to watch when all the children and grandkids of the world are murdered in this way.

    We are a PhD scientist and a protective mother of five including a Eurasian daughter adopted when I was a Lutheran missionary in my younger days. The title of this email suggesting that Trump will foolishly light the fuse to all out nuclear war with a preemptive strike on equally nutcase Kim Jong Un is not a fairy tale but a real possibility given Trump’s crafty callousness and our mathematical understanding of the violent emotions that drive people like Trump to do what they do.

    What we wanted from Trump was change for the better – I voted and actively campaigned for him. What we got from Sir Satan von Drumpf, though, was a dictatorial predator shrewd enough not to advertise his intentions beforehand. Read our math-based argument calling for his removal from the presidency he stole with Putin’s help in this rigged election on trumpnuke.tumblr.com. And visit our math heavy website, matrix-evolutions.com, posted last July when imprudent hopes lead to our initially supporting him.

    Peter and Ruth Calabria
    the World with no Weapons movement

    Reply
  • September 14, 2017 at 1:39 pm
    Permalink

    Bethaney Lee (*Excellent article on the impacts and concerns of parking structure removals, it is very similar to SFSU-CSU’s proposal that eliminates the parking but relies on other areas.)

    With ongoing changes at CCSF and the need for a future master-plan effort that showcases the adaptability of the city college planners the problems will worsen and not be resolved.

    The Balboa Reservoir Project and its impacts are a train that has left the station. Many meetings and ongoing discussions with the community have been widely published and the selected team has done its initial due-diligence with the MOHCD and Planning Department.

    The problem is that CCSF has had a “delay-of-game” in terms of their planning and now have to play catch up with their future on their property.

    This entails looking at the PAEC building promised, and ensure it is built.

    It requires looking at more than just a sports-track rehab on the eastern side of campus, but a whole-view birds-eye on the campus and its possible future vision planning.

    Part if it should definitely entail a new parking structure, student and faculty housing, and a more solid connection physically to the Balboa Park Station across the freeway and not the gutter-tunnel that exists crossing ocean ave.

    The solution lies in the topography of the eastern edge of CCSF and looking seriously at a direct exit off the freeway into a parking facility stacked vertically, building essential housing and new facilities on TOP of the new structure.

    If done correctly pedestrian and bike routes could run seamless from the upper elevations of CCSF straight down at a less steep slope and directly into the Balboa Park Station as a “high-line” project that provides a new SE corner entry into CCSF and provides a way to divert traffic off of ocean ave. and directly onto the garage levels.

    By providing new housing “land” the CCSF could partner with affordable housing providers such as those building the upper yards project, or other student housing facilities on the eastern edge. The views are great, from the CLOUD building and the changes that occur could provide solar, and wind generated energy for the campus, new water retention projects, that provide for new sources of potable water and energy harnessing.

    The Balboa Reservoir project may not provide affordable solutions for students, but neither did Parkmerced’s project and its impacts on rental housing in Parkmerced and Stonestown. It is more critical that the CCSF look at how SFSU-CSU developed housing through a land-grab, and instead of focusing outwards, they should refocus inwards at their existing property and how to best utilize the valuable land they have existing.

    There was also an article in the SF Examiner on the issue of “Chariot” and ride-sharing and the new economy impacts. Students need to realize that two-tiered systems of transit be it driving a personal vehicle or riding lyft or uber, or chariot, does not solve transit and mass-transit needs.

    Planning for mass-transit friendly solutions and the infrastructure needed to turn Balboa Park Station into a central urban hub for CCSF and the Reservoir is the only solution that should be the primary focus of the planners and the students, faculty and staff at CCSF.

    If CCSF sells more land off they should be forced to reinvest it in their remaining campus infrastructure and existing buildings.

    It will take a solid vision, and one that does not just focus on mediocre buildings or concepts, but takes a larger stride forward developing the infrastructure, and the buildings for CCSF’s future.

    The masterplan effort already outlines some decisions, but some may not be as far-stretching as they need to be to really have a positive effect. This may be due to money, or a more “conservative” strategy of build-out. The infrastructure bridge on the southern side of campus needs to be replaced and/or redesigned, and I would strongly suggest a southern edge pathway like a high-line that takes students direct down and into the Balboa Park Station utlizing toporgraphy.

    Sincerely

    Aaron Goodman D11 Resident

    (*CCSF Student / BPS-CAC current chair)

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *