Council Votes for Suicide Barrier Transparency

Excellent! Transparency in government! What a concept! Apparently something the lefties don't value. Look at who made it happen....

I agree with Grant House: "Councilman Grant House, who acknowledged it was a difficult topic for him because he has lost loved ones to suicide on the bridge, agreed with asking for the vetting, as long as it wasn’t a delaying tactic and the process would continue to move forward."

Suicide is often a death resulting from easy opportunity that thwarted means additional time for reconsideration and ultimately a life saved. This is what the professionals from Glendon and other psychiatric and social service organizations tell us. People who has jumped from a bridge and survived have said the moment they were airborne, they regretted their decision.

Build the barrier. Delay means more deaths from this bridge. None of those posting here will have the responsibility or duty to face the parents, spouses, brothers and sisters and children of the dead to tell them their loved one is gone.

Wow I agree with Pedro Nava, there's hope for America yet. You can tell a lot of a society on how it treats its most vulnerable. People contemplating suicide are at their most vulnerable point. Granted a suicide barrier will not stop everyone who is in the process of self destruction, but it will make it harder for them to carry thru with it and hopefully before they can, they will have a moment of clarity.
The bridge was built to facilitate transportation, not boost the funeral industry. People like "John Locke", Hotchkiss, Self and Francisco live only for themselves and so be it; but we should not be at the mercy of their greed and narrowmindedness. The life that barrier saves could be someone you love.

Pedro and EZK miss the point. Those who are calling for an alternative design are NOT arguing that no barrier be built at all. They are saying that the alternative of a horizontal barrier is just as effective at "saving lives" as the Caltrans proposal of a vertical barrier, but has the added virtue of preserving the historic integrity and scenic quality of the bridge. So stop with the emotional hysterics and personal attacks and realistically address the real issues here.

What do `historic integrity' and `scenic quality' mean? `Real issues' should be easy to understand.

The history of the bridge will be the same whether a barrier is built or not. The scenes near the bridge have the same quality whether or not the barrier is built.

Maybe zorro you mean the `view from the bridge' is better with the net-type barrier. OK, that would be a clear, real issue. But how much pedestrian traffic is there on that bridge that enjoys the view?