Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Oysters offer path
to a healthy bay
I’ve lived in the Bay Area my whole life, and I’ve always known the bay was polluted. Recently, I learned that oysters could help.
Oysters are filterers: they remove nitrogen from the water as they build their shells. Too much nitrogen causes algae blooms, which lowers the amount of oxygen in the water and makes it hard for many species to survive.
Oysters also create habitats. As oysters grow, their shells meld together and form oyster reefs. This has a ripple effect: Oyster reefs provide a habitat for many plants and smaller animals, who then are eaten by predators, which means that oyster reefs help support a whole ecosystem. Oyster reefs reduce the impact of climate change on tides, which protects marine life in the bay.
I’d like to encourage people to research local organizations doing this work, and other sustainable solutions for climate change.
Sierra Luce
Albany
Pleasanton plots path
to greater gun safety
On Nov. 30 in Michigan, a gun got into the wrong hands. Again. As a result, four students are dead and seven other people are wounded.
This could happen anywhere. Even here. That is why we are so proud that the Pleasanton City Council just voted in a new Safe Storage Ordinance. The ordinance clarifies California state law in two ways: It clarifies exactly what safe storage is: firearms must be stored in a locked container or by using a gun lock. It applies to all residences, regardless of the presence or absence of children.
During 2020, gun sales surged by 64% and unintentional shootings by children increased by 31%. 2021 has already had more mass shootings than any year in the previous seven years.
If you are a gun owner, lock up your firearms.
Laurie and Bill Herbert
Pleasanton
Adding officers won’t
stop group robberies
Kevin Wilk and other Walnut Creek council members got their feelings hurt on social media. In response, they are now spending $2 million on a solution that has zero chance of stopping the next shoplifting mob (“$2M in COVID relief funds used to hire more police,” Page B1, Dec. 2).
The council is willing to spend a quarter of its American Rescue Plan funding, which was intended to help merchants, renters, landlords and those hurt by the pandemic, to instead hire more police officers who will come with ongoing pension and benefit costs once the ARP funds are gone. There are local approaches that would work such as limiting street access and parking around Broadway plaza. There are regional approaches such as intelligence gathering and strong prosecution. There’s also a national effort to punish those who sell stolen goods online.
But more cops and their toys? Useless.
Michael Moore
Walnut Creek
Senate must act quickly
on Biden spending bill
I am thrilled that the House has finally passed the Build Back Better Act (“House passes Biden’s $2T bill,” Page A1, Nov. 20). This bill would be a historic investment in the American people.
Build Back Better would help 300,000 new low-income renter households finally get assistance to help them afford a place to live. It also extends the new Child Tax Credit (CTC) payments, which have already lifted more than 3 million children out of poverty. But Congress is cutting it close; the CTC monthly payments are currently scheduled to end in December.
The bill now goes to the Senate. With so much on the line and the clock ticking, the Senate must pass this bill as soon as possible. Americans have waited far too long for Congress to get this done.
I strongly urge Sens. Alex Padilla and Dianne Feinstein to demand immediate consideration of the Build Back Better Act and to vote yes when it comes to a vote.
Pat Payne
Castro Valley
Column on two trials
got it half right
In “Two trials — breaking even against American vigilantism” (Page A7, Dec. 1), writer John Crisp finds similarities in the defendants in the Rittenhouse and Aubrey trials, in that both suggest aspects of racist and vigilante behavior. Since fighting racism and vigilantism is important, misleading commentary makes the fight all the more problematic. Rittenhouse’s going to the scene may qualify as poor judgment, but not as racism.
Rittenhouse was technically a vigilante, or acting outside of the law. He was 17, not 18, while in possession of a dangerous weapon, and thus committing a misdemeanor. But he was hardly a racist. He simply shot three White men in self-defense.
In comparison, the defendants in the Aubrey trial were clearly racists, with no reasonable belief that they were acting to stop a crime.
Daniel Mauthe
Livermore
Source: www.mercurynews.com