Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Burger chain can’t pick
and choose health rules
In-NOut burger is now only following health department directives it agrees with (“In-N-Out shut down for ignoring rules,” Page B1, Oct. 27). Let’s hope they don’t think it is discriminatory to make employees wash their hands.
Health department policies are in place to safeguard the public. It is not up to them to decide which policies they want to enforce. Or maybe they just will become Out-N-Out burgers.
Dick Weyand
Walnut Creek
Newsom must stand
firm on COVID policy
While most of the population may have brushed off the COVID pandemic by now there is still a great amount of work to be done to ensure the virus is gone for good. The governor has shown he’s all bark and no bite (“Newsom must stop COVID-19 mixed messages,” Page A6, Oct. 13).
Someone must pioneer the vaccination movement, and it starts with our schools. There are plenty of other shots that children and school personnel must take to attend class and work, so why is the COVID shot taking so long? It’s already approved for adults and has been mandated by plenty of companies and other government-funded operations.
Newsom must realize there is more to this decision than just his career. Lives, jobs and our education system are in jeopardy while we wait for what happens next. The time to act is now. There’s no time to sit around and watch what happens.
Matthew Jackson
Sacramento
A’s should build near
BART or find new city
Re. “County offers tentative ballpark support,” Page A1, Oct. 28:
If the Oakland A’s aren’t willing to build a new stadium right next to BART, then go to Las Vegas.
Oakland needs the port for jobs and to end the supply chain shortage. Remember the deal that the Raiders made with Oakland? The citizens ended up paying the bills and they moved twice.
The city of Oakland does not need to take on more debt with the massive amount of unhoused, crime and smaller police force.
Support commerce through our valuable port, not a ballpark that isn’t near public transportation.
Kathleen Clancy
Marin
EVs merely move, not
shrink, carbon footprint
David Pepper misses the mark on his well-intentioned article (“Transportation choices key to climate success,” Page A8, Oct. 27). Most EV users do not charge their cars using rooftop solar or windmills. They charge from a grid that is still fossil-fuel dependent. That just exports the pollution to the point of generation. The “typical” EV vehicle pollutes more than the typical petrol-powered one (The Economist, “Cleaner Than What?”). Don’t forget to account for the tons of polluted earth and millions of liters of water expended to produce the battery. (Industryweek.com)
California is offering folks up to $9,500 to trade in their current smogmobile for another. Brilliant. What of those who faithfully use active transportation? Those who actually help solve the environmental problems – and reduce traffic jams, parking problems, infrastructure costs and vehicular injuries and fatalities? Sadly, they get nothing – except the finger from the smogmobilists who feel they don’t belong on the road. Well done, California.
Stacy Spink
Castro Valley
Invest high-speed rail
money in AEV fleet
With billions and billions of dollars of private money flowing into autonomous vehicle technology by the likes of Google and Tesla, it seems preposterous that people like Norman Mineta are still yearning for an old-fashion, publicly-funded train (“Bay Area needs high-speed rail, and it’s time to finish it,” Page A8, Oct. 27).
While the envisioned train may go lickety-split between Modesto and Bakersfield, it is unlikely to speed quickly in or out of downtown San Francisco or San Jose. Add in the time to get to a train station, park, wait for the train and then get from the train station to work, any time savings for commuters may be minimal.
For the same amount of money proposed by Mineta for high-speed rail, his 200,000 daily commuters could be given autonomous electric vehicles. AEVs would reduce carbon emissions, reduce accidents and make car-pooling a no-brainer.
It is time that we jump on the next technology wave and off the train to nowhere.
Craig Bender
Walnut Creek
Self-flying choppers
are a terrible idea
Your Oct. 26 article in the Business section about nonpilots using automated systems (by Skyryse and others) to fly helicopters in our skies soon was alarming, to say the least (“I’m not a pilot, but I just flew a helicopter over California,” Page C7).
Much like Tesla’s “self-driving” cars that have been involved in severe accidents and killed some nonattentive “drivers,” driverless helicopters don’t sound like a smart idea. I wouldn’t want to be in a legitimate plane on takeoff or landing approach with amateur helicopter jockeys having fun in the skies nearby with their dangerous new toys. I don’t want them flying over neighborhoods, schools, churches, businesses, athletic events, etc.
It was alarming to read that developers would like to make these helicopters pilotless, but are willing to “compromise” on a requirement for an onboard human to be “the ultimate decision-maker.” No. The human should be a licensed helicopter pilot with 100% override capability.
Kathy Schmitz
Concord
Source: www.mercurynews.com