Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
S.J. jobs, housing,
transit out of balance
Re. “San Jose’s elected leaders need to plan for success,” Page A6, Feb. 14:
San Jose bet a lot of its marbles on the momentum of the Google Village. Now Google growth is tabled for the foreseeable future (“Google rethinks timeline for village,” Page A1, Feb. 14).
Will San Jose leaders and its citizens find new momentum by increasing city planning staff? Momentum is fueled primarily by jobs, transportation and housing, not more planners.
How will this impact plans for BART, high-speed rail and Caltrain? Not much capital can flow into new housing without the stimulus of Google jobs.
The synergy of jobs, transportation and housing is out of balance again, and I hear the old refrains of “Do you know the way to San Jose?”
Neilson Buchanan
Palo Alto
Developer, not Google,
is dragging its feet
Re. “Google rethinks timeline for village,” Page A1, Feb. 14:
I find it interesting that the article conflates Downtown West (DTW) development with Google’s Village.
As the article states, Google remains committed to its planned development.
Google has moved ahead with tearing down the buildings on their sites and getting the underground utilities upgraded.
It’s the developers involved in DTW that seem to be playing “wait and see.” DTW developers seem to be buying properties, and evicting residents and businesses to hold onto the property, rather than move ahead with their grand plans.
Mary Pizzo
San Jose
Put Cal State buildings
on maintenance plan
Re: “Billions need to repair, renovate Cal State’s buildings,” Page B1, Feb. 20:
The problem of needing an absurd amount of money to fix existing college buildings can be rectified with a law requiring mandatory, planned maintenance on all government property.
Any owner of a car or home knows that you have to repair and maintain it to preserve your investment. Plan, budget, maintain or discard it as worthless.
Ronald Johnstone
Santa Clara
Teachers alone shouldn’t
set school curriculum
Re. “Leave school curriculum decisions to the teachers,” Page A7, Feb. 17:
I understand the sentiment of leaving school curriculum to the teachers. Unfortunately, this principle does not always hold true.
In 2019, an Advisory Committee composed of teachers and educators came up with the first draft of the Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum (ESMC) that was roundly rejected by Californians for its purely pro-Marxist ideology, anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. The second draft, in 2020, was not much better. Only the third draft, in 2021, squeezed through, but remains now in limbo, unknown or forgotten.
Meanwhile, a majority of the Advisory Committee has united into a group called Liberated that is pedaling its own Liberated Ethnic Studies Curriculum, based on the first rejected ESMC draft. Continuing with Jeffery Leving’s tendency of quoting George Orwell, one can paraphrase the famous author and say: “All teachers are great, but some are much less great than others.”
Vladimir Kaplan
San Mateo
PG&E is working
to mitigate gas prices
West Coast natural gas prices have been rising this winter, and PG&E wants our customers to know their energy bills may rise as a result.
Price increases of approximately 32% are due to higher demand and tighter supplies, as customers use more natural gas for heating during cooler than normal temperatures, and as power plants use more natural gas to meet electricity demand.
PG&E does not control the market prices we pay for natural gas, and we don’t mark up the cost of the energy we buy for customers.
We’re working with regulators, policymakers and lawmakers to provide bill relief — including supporting the California Public Utilities Commission’s decision to distribute the annual April Climate Credit as soon as possible — a $91.17 credit for customers receiving gas and electricity. We also support the governor’s call for a federal investigation into high gas market prices.
Teresa Alvarado
PG&E Vice President, South Bay & Central Coast Region
San Jose
Control penchant for
violence, not guns
Allen Price’s letter (“Let’s scrap unclear Second Amendment,” Page A6, Feb. 14) doesn’t mention the Supreme Court has considered the right of individuals to own arms but never found grounds to overrule the Second Amendment.
But if it’s the will of the people to outlaw private gun ownership, why hasn’t the Constitution been amended to outlaw individual gun ownership just as the 18th Amendment outlawed alcohol? Perhaps it’s because if people gave up their guns, criminals and violent protesters wouldn’t. As we learned from the 18th Amendment, it is futile to pass a law that can’t be enforced.
Gun violence in our society would exist with or without the Second Amendment, and it’s our inclinations to violence that have to be addressed.
Ed Kahl
Woodside
Source: www.mercurynews.com