Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Cutting water use only
is not sustainable
Re. “Bay Area water use rules are tightening,” Page A1, April 22, “New water restrictions set for East Bay,” Page A1, April 27, “State far off from meeting water goal,” Page A1, May 11, “Newsom urges increase in water conservation,” Page A1, May 24, “Will Newsom ever require mandatory water-usage cuts,” Page A6, May 26:
I have read many of these and wonder why the general public has to sacrifice again. As one opinion stated, in the 1970s our water usage was enough for everyone, but now we have twice the population and no one will address a solution other than we have to keep cutting back
Why don’t our elected officials stand up and get a solution that can help curb this problem? My biggest question in all this is why do we continue to build more housing, but we have to keep cutting back? Maybe the powers that be need to put a moratorium on the building of new homes, until we can get ourselves solvent again.
We need to stand up and get a solution before a new year brings us to the same situation we have gone through for the last three years.
Diane Walker
Pleasant Hill
Sea-level rise makes
ballpark a non-starter
The plans to build a new ballpark for the A’s at Howard Terminal in the Port of Oakland is due to be approved soon by one of many governmental agencies (June 30, Bay Conservation and Development Committee).
Although I have seen many reasons why it should not be built at this spot, no one mentions that the increase in sea rise at this port would be disastrous to anyone who buys or lives in one of these planned homes. The whole area will be underwater eventually. It should be kept as a port and not another shopping mall.
Another galling aspect is that the former ballpark at the Coliseum would be a perfect spot for a new ballpark and less expensive for us taxpayers, too.
Suzanne Barba
Oakland
Proud Boys can’t
extinguish free speech
Regarding the disturbance at the San Lorenzo Library (“Apparent Proud Boys disrupt Drag Queen Story Hour,” Page B1, June 13): There is no place for intimidation of anyone and potential threats. There is always a backlash to social movements, as history has taught us.
However, there are other ways to make one’s opinion known. It is up to the parents to decide what their children can be exposed to. If someone does not like to expose children to this, they are not required to take their children to the event.
Freedom of speech is allowed, but intimidation is not.
Marianne Haas
Berkeley
Nation of warfare
prone to gun violence
In 1962 when I was a boy, President Kennedy’s assassination shocked us all. But when asked to comment Malcolm X replied that it was “Chicken’s coming home to roost,” referring to the CIA’s involvement in the murder of Patrice Lumumba and the failed attempts to kill Fidel Castro. Six years later at the height of the Vietnam slaughter Martin Luther King declared the U.S. to be “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.” Both men were themselves assassinated.
Now as an old man, I see the Democrats and Republicans hurl blame for the Uvalde tragedy at each other for political gain yet again. Meanwhile, Congress passes a $57 billion “aid package” for Ukraine to fuel our proxy war there against Russia, fresh on the heels of our Afghanistan disaster. So, in this nation of perpetual warfare, it is really unsurprising that we are awash in senseless violence which devours our own children.
Michael Dunlap
Oakland
Good guy-bad guy trope
leads to wrong decision
In “Good guys with guns are not the answer” (Letters to the Editor, Page A6, June 7), the writer argues that the school shooting in Uvalde shows that the good guy-bad guy yarn doesn’t work, since good guys with guns stood by while the shooting took place. But actually, it means that yarn does work – in Uvalde, the good guys with guns were properly trained and got the shooter.
The writer said that the only other solution is to ban assault weapons. But this shooter could have caused the same amount of harm with a couple of handguns. In the final analysis, simply imposing gun bans could lead us away from addressing the numerous issues that contribute to gun violence.
Daniel Mauthe
Livermore
Source: www.mercurynews.com