Send your letter to the editors using this form. Read more letters to the editor.
Say no to waste
Money and call back
Whether you want Governor Gavin Newsom to end his term or not, if you vote "no" on removal, the message will be sent that $ 400 million will be spent on a vote that is the term of one Governor can only shorten it by a year, an incredible waste of taxpayers' money and shouldn't be repeated.
Four hundred million dollars could fund four times more SB 234, Transitional Youth Housing for the Homeless Aged 18-21. It could provide food for those in need and improve education in our prisons to reduce relapses. It could replace all expensive college textbooks with free or inexpensive ones. What is more worthwhile?
We have an election every four years to determine our next governor. If you want a new governor, vote. Stop this incredible waste of our money.
Rent SJ City Manager
offers an opportunity for change
We thank City Manager Dave Sykes for 34 years of service to our city. San Jose has benefited from continuity and stability in the city administrator's office over the past few years, but the pace and scale of change our city is facing today must be matched with equally dramatic changes in the organization and staffing of our city government.
Loss of income, housing construction, homelessness, pension liabilities and aging infrastructure are just a few of the annoying challenges our next city manager faces. At the same time, a Charter Review Commission is evaluating possible extensions of mayoral powers.
Mayor Sam Liccardo and the city council need to seize this moment to reconsider the role and qualifications of our next city manager. The search for a permanent city manager should be postponed until the Charter Review Commission's work is complete, at which point a nationwide search should be undertaken.
Division shouldn't drive
state water policy
Belinda Faustinos and Barbara Barrigan-Parilla were on the right track when they wrote an editorial encouraging Governor Gavin Newsom to provide clean water for all ("The governor's decision is key to providing clean water for all", Page A6, June 10). However, I think that by repeatedly using "disadvantaged communities" they have created a division where none should exist.
The reality of California's water problems is that we are all disadvantaged communities as one dry year turns into another. Pollution, water shortage, and pollution affect the entire state, a state that has tried to manage a limited water supply as our population continues to grow and we have become a large agricultural producer. We keep fighting for water, possibly to the last drop.
It is time to come together and realize that we are all in the same boat and that this boat is not swimming, it is in the mud.
Follow, don't rethink
Diablo Canyon Law
While I agree with reader Donald Jedlovec (“The State Should Revisit Nuclear Deactivation,” p. A6, June 9), I have a slight disagreement about the law. SB 1090, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, does not need a roof. It has to be taken into account in the first place.
The law requires that Diablo be replaced with an equivalent capacity. One wonders where PG&E will find two gigawatts of greenhouse gas-free electricity around the clock and why the PUC is not holding PG&E accountable.
Gun law more than
a punch in the face
Judge Roger Benitez's ruling to lift the ban on semi-automatic weapons of attack (“Weapons ban reversal reversal stokes force fear,” p. A1, June 6) is not just a slap in the face for Californians, it is also a bad decision. The judge finds that the ban on weapons that cause enormous damage violates people's rights under the second amendment to the constitution. The judge should have taken into account the lack of freedom the judgment brings to ordinary Californians who worry about being shot in a mall, at a trade show, or at work.
Judge Benitez wants us to feel good that people aren't walking around with bazookas and howitzers. The judge had no qualms about equating an AR-15 rifle with a Swiss Army knife. I wonder if the judge lets the so-called Swiss Army Knife in his courtroom or if he has a different standard when it comes to his own courtroom.
Tax laws that favor
the rich have to change
It is outrageous that 25 rich billionaires pay far less in taxes as a percentage of their income than most taxpayers. Some paid zero, zip, nada. The latest analysis of plutocrats' tax returns shows that tax avoidance benefits those whose revenues exceed $ 2 million. It's legal under current tax law, but it's just not right.
Warren Buffet, for example, paid just $ 23.7 million in taxes from 2014 to 2018, when his net worth rose by $ 24.3 billion. That's less than 0.1% of his income. What percentage of your income went to taxes?
It is perfectly legal for losses on speculative investments such as the stock market to offset bets won in years to come. But those untaxed profits require higher taxes for the rest of us. Why should we cover the oligarchs' losses while not sharing their profits? Why are capital gains taxed at half the wage rate?
These unfair tax laws should be changed.