Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Election letters cutoff
Wednesday is the last day to submit letters pertaining to the March 5 election. To submit a letter, please fill out the form at eastbaytimes.com/letters-to-the-editor. We do not accept letters by email.
Measure B will throw
good money after bad
Please be aware of Measure B on the ballot. The Antioch School Board wants you to approve a $195 million bond, resulting in more taxes on your property until 2059. That’s right: $195 million to paint schools, fix walkways, etc. You will pay $48.00 per $100,000 of home assessed value.
Two bonds were already passed (Measure C in 2008) and (Measure B in 2012) to update and fix schools. What happened to the money already collected?
Our children are scoring terribly on state testing. Many of Antioch’s schools are below the 20th percentile in math. Reading is nearly as bad. Not one cent of bond money goes to improve this and our education leaders want us to trust them with $195 million.
Paint won’t improve reading or math. I know. I taught public schools for 37 years.
Daniel Solorio
Antioch
Alameda schools
need Measure E
It is paramount that Alameda pass the Measure E school parcel tax on March 5. This measure provides 20% of the Alameda Unified School District budget and impacts the basic needs of our district, like attracting and retaining teachers, sustaining academic programs, supporting struggling students and preparing students for college and/or careers.
I am the executive director of the Alameda Education Foundation, which supports public schools by providing programming and financial resources. But AEF — or any community organization — cannot possibly generate the $24,000,000 in annual funding that is needed to prevent devastating cuts to the very foundation of our children’s education. That level of support depends on all of us.
Measure E renews Alameda’s two existing parcel taxes by wrapping them into one measure. It does not increase what we pay now. Please vote yes on Measure E. We can’t do it without you.
Vicki Sedlack
Alameda
Prop. 1 will offer
treatment, not jail
I urge a yes vote on Proposition 1.
Sadly, my loved one with a serious mental illness is sitting in jail. If there had been enough trained professionals and bed space, he would have been put in a hospital and would now be getting care.
We need Proposition 1 to pass. We need beds and care instead of tents, the streets or jail for our loved ones.
Just in Contra Costa County, it’s estimated that we have 2,000 to 2,500 unhoused. More than 50% of the homeless have severe mental illness and/or substance use disorder issues. We need both enough inpatient and outpatient care.
On Christmas morning, I volunteered with a partner to take new socks to the homeless. The homeless weren’t hard to find. We found five people living in Civic Park.
Please vote yes on Proposition 1. It’s needed.
Miriam Glickman
Walnut Creek
A’s were never
Oakland’s team
Re: “Fans Fest brings out the cheers and jeers” (Page A1, Feb. 25 ).
I think some people’s consternation over the A’s departure for Las Vegas is misplaced. This baseball company is not “Our Team” and the owner is free to take his business elsewhere if he wants. It’s nothing new. The A’s left Philadelphia in 1954 and left Kansas City in 1963. Sometime in the future they may also leave Las Vegas.
It seems to me that the Coliseum location had a lot going for it as a place for a new stadium. It has good weather, immediate transit and highway access, and a place in a major media market. But I guess Las Vegas had people willing to put up big bucks to help build a new workplace for John Fisher’s Athletics Baseball Company. So, as they say, “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”
Ed Green
Oakland
Keep landlines for
when ‘big one’ hits
Re: “AT&T looks to pull the plug” (Page A1, Feb. 8).
What many don’t seem to think about regarding losing landlines is that when “the big one” hits, cell towers might collapse making cell phones worthless.
Without cell towers, the only way to make phone calls would be through landlines. Not with phones without cords attached, but bonafide telephones, hooked into the wall with the receiver attached, by a cord, to the base of the phone.
Then again, I suppose sarcasm would remind us that if the big one strikes, trying to make phone calls might be the least of our worries.
Please keep our landlines a viable resource of communication.
Betsy Sargent
Alamo
Letter leaves out
critical tax facts
Re: ”Top earners pay more than fair share” (Page A6, Feb. 20).
A recent letter to the editor repeats the same basic math errors as so many others.
If you want to point out that the top 1% pay almost half of the income tax, you need to also point out that they earn almost half the total taxable income. Sounds fair to me.
Also, if 40 years ago the top 1% paid only 19% of the tax, you need to compare to what percent of total income they earned. It’s no secret that wealth is now more concentrated in the top 1% than ever before. Just look at CEO salary compared to average worker, now and 40 years ago.
And don’t forget how Jeff Bezos paid so little tax a few years ago that he was actually eligible for the Child Tax Credit, only available to middle- and low-income taxpayers. Is that fair?
Mark Bole
Walnut Creek
Vote for Esteen for
Alameda County board
It’s time for change on the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.
We need Jennifer Esteen to replace Supervisor Nate Miley who has been on the Board for 23 years. Esteen is a psychiatric nurse and understands that when people are in a mental health crisis they need care in their community — not in jail.
She helped manage a $1 billion budget in her position as vice president of the Alameda Health System Board of Trustees and serves on the Eden Area Municipal Advisory Council. She understands the needs of residents of the unincorporated areas of Alameda County.
Supervisors don’t only represent their own district constituents. Their votes affect all of the county. We need a new supervisor who stands for housing the homeless and treating the mentally ill.
Micky Duxbury
Berkeley
Pricing based on
income a bad idea
Re: “Utilites’ fixed rate plan targeted” (Page A1, Feb. 22).
The East Bay Times article above cited that there is considerable opposition to charging utility user rates, “based on income” and “not usage.” This socialist redistribution scheme is so absurd that even Democrats oppose it. Should all consumer purchases be repriced based upon income? Grocery purchases, gasoline, restaurants, rents, houses and even cars? Would customers have to bring current tax returns?
When the successful are penalized everywhere they go, would this not discourage productivity? We always get less of what we penalize and more of what we subsidize. As most are “lower income” compared to “upper income,” would not the subsidies tend to greatly increase overall usage on our over-stressed utilities?
Mark Fernwood
Danville
Fine out of line
with Quest’s profits
Re: “Quest Diagnostics to pay $5M to settle charges” (Page B1, Feb. 15).
According to the article on Feb. 15, Quest Diagnostics agreed to pay $5 million to settle charges that it improperly disposed of hazardous chemicals, medical waste and patient information at multiple locations across the Bay Area and California. California Attorney General Rob Bonta said, “Let today’s settlement send a clear message that my office will hold corporations, including medical services providers, accountable.”
However, the article mentioned that the company had revenues of $9.8 billion in 2022. I sure hope they have enough petty cash on hand to pay this whopping fine.
Mark Gabin
Concord
