Letters: Housing bond | Resolving ambiguities | Harris critique | Get serious | Cruel order | Best hope
Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
$20B housing bondshould be voted down
The $20 billion housing bond that will be on the Nov. 5 ballot is like snake oil.
Only as little as 72% of the $20 billion housing bond will be spent to actually build affordable housing for extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households. Ten percent can be spent on grants for “transportation, schools, and parks.” Notably, only 80% of the proceeds of the bond issue need to be spent in the county funding the bonds. Thus, Contra Costa County residents could end up paying for parks in San Mateo County.
The decision to place the bond on the ballot was made by the MTC, which includes unelected, unaccountable officials and is therefore like taxation without representation. We can and must do better.
Nick WaranoffOrinda
Critique of Harrisapplies to others
Re: “Democrats deserved contest, not coronation” (Page A7, July 25).
In his critique of Kamala Harris, Bret Stephens mentions high staff turnover during her time as vice president and the fact that she failed the bar exam on the first try.
Regarding turnover, he should have started by looking at the mile-long list of senior and mid-level Trump people who quit or were fired.
As for the bar exam, Harris is in good company. Others who took the exam more than once include Franklin D. Roosevelt, Michele Obama, John F, Kennedy Jr., and former California Governors Jerry Brown and Pete Wilson.
He also claims she has been a bad campaigner. He’s entitled to his opinion, but her first speech in Milwaukee looked pretty impressive to me, in contrast to Donald Trump’s 93-minute meandering speech at the Republican convention.
John WalkmeyerSan Ramon
We must get seriousafter record heat
Re: “Last Sunday was hottest day on Earth in recorded history” (Page A2, July 24)
That alarming headline was corrected the next day online: “Sunday was hottest day on the planet – no, wait, it’s Monday.” Things are just starting to warm up.
It is now obvious that the cost of this heat — both in dollars and in human lives — far outstrips the cost of reducing CO2 emissions. Are we going to follow Ben Franklin’s advice: “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”? Or John Paul Jones, “I have not yet begun to fight”? We need to get serious, folks.
Cliff GoldFremont
Newsom’s order tosweep camps is cruel
Re: “Newsom orders sweeps of camps” (Page A1, July 26).
The scary truth is most Californians are only a few bad breaks away from homelessness. The unlucky blow may come from a wildfire or, worse, an unexpected medical bill. Insurers profit most off denying coverage, that is, if you were fortunate enough to have health insurance in the first place.
Capitalism turns housing into a scarce commodity and then blames people who lack it. Rather than treating the unhoused as untouchable, we should give them security and more chances. It is the Christian thing to do and a humane imperative.
Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order to sweep away homeless encampments is cruel. It does nothing to solve the systemic problems that cause homelessness in the first place. And by treating other people like trash, the Ggovernor has proven he’s garbage.
Alan MarlingLivermore
Harris win is best hopefor multiracial society
I was one of 50,000 Black men on a call for Kamala Harris, a day after 44,000 Black women got together. I haven’t seen this level of excitement since Barack Obama in 2008. Black women and men being this energized is how we will win the fight for a multiracial democracy.
The California Donor Table has moved over $60 million to progressive community organizations and candidates. With skyrocketing support from voters of color, we will win the presidency, retain the Senate and win eight contested California House districts to take back the House
Kamala was born at the same Oakland hospital as my son. In 2020, hundreds of us danced in front of her former Berkeley apartment to celebrate her victory. And boy will we party if, natch, when she wins the presidency.
Ludovic BlainBerkeley
Courts are best placeto resolve ambiguities
Re: “Eviscerating agencies’ power is dangerous” (Page A6, July 10).
A letter writer complained that the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimundo now prevents federal administrative agencies from “resolving statutory ambiguities.” But that is exactly how it should be. That’s what courts do.
While agencies may have certain “expertise,” they are not courts. Courts have the expertise to resolve ambiguities in the law; agencies don’t. I don’t want an agency expert to interpret a legal ambiguity; that is not the job of a federal bureaucrat. That expert might be a conservative or liberal who lets his or her worldviews influence a decision.
If an agency finds an ambiguity in the law, have them go to Congress to clarify the issue. That is the job of our representatives.
Douglas AbbottUnion City