Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Alameda County wants
more money in politics
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors is considering doubling the amount of money they can accept for their own reelection campaigns.
The current limit is $20,000 per election, with primary and run-off races considered separate elections. This is more than three times the highest of the five immediate Bay Area counties, including Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara, that range from $500 to the state limit of $5,900 (for counties without their own ordinance before the state limit was enacted).
Related Articles
Letters: Gov. Newsom contradicts himself with Prop. 50
Letters: Was op-ed’s intent to dissuade voters on Prop. 50?
Letters: ICE focuses on honor students instead of criminals
Letters: Rule to make appliances electric is too expensive, impractical
Letters: What private investor would put money into high-speed rail?
Supervisor David Haubert claims that the $20,000 per election cycle was set to level the playing field, but if their proposal is enacted, the contribution limit will be more than eight times the current state limit and neighboring counties’.
We need to get big money out of politics. Big money primarily benefits incumbents who, without term limits, as in Alameda County, have a huge advantage over challengers.
Bob Britton
Castro Valley
Political party is
a minority of choice
Re: “Minority representation a lie in this state” (Page A6, Sept. 3).
Nice try, Mr. Waranoff, but the problem with your minority comparison isn’t apples and oranges, it’s more like apples and religion.
Neither apples (nor oranges) can choose what they are: They are a product of their seed, their sun and their photosynthesis, just like people can’t choose their race, their birthplace or sexual orientation. We can, however, choose our religion (or not choose a religion), just like we can choose our politics.
This is akin to a faux minority of choice, not comparable to a true minority when whining about the “hypocrisy” of being given a plastic knife for a gunfight.
Gary Smith
Pleasanton
Conservatorships
are sadly legal
Re: “Give me my money back” (Page A1, Sept. 1).
Conservatorships like the one used on Richard Matteson, of Las Gatos, are appalling, but not illegal.
Conservatorships are a part of California’s legal hold system created by the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act of 1967. The LPS Act was originally designed to limit the broad use of involuntary commitment in state hospitals in the early 20th century. The law permits the Public Guardian’s Office to place people deemed “gravely disabled” on conservatorships that restrict their rights. Conservatorships may restrict a person’s right to vote, to have a driver’s license, to manage their finances or to choose where they live. The LPS Act also allows first responders, law enforcement, mental health professionals and medical personnel to place people on involuntary holds. These holds detain people who are seen as a danger to themselves or others, or “gravely disabled.” These criteria are not explicitly defined.
Please educate yourselves on this widely used but unknown system.
Kevin Cheung
Union City
Ban on neonics is
only way to save bees
Bees are vital pollinators, supporting everything from wildflowers to the food on our plates. Yet in California, 1 in 3 native bee species face extinction, largely due to pesticides called neonics. These chemicals attack bees’ nervous systems, leaving them unable to fly or return to their hives. In fact, just one coated seed can kill up to 80,000 bees.
The solution is simple: stop using toxic, pesticide-coated seeds. CALPIRG is calling on Gov. Newsom to support a statewide ban, with key decisions expected in February. To win, we must demonstrate strong public support and advocacy. By hosting pollinator education events, building coalitions with farmers and gardeners and collecting petition signatures, we can protect our buzzing friends.
Urgent action is vital, not only to sustain our agriculture, but also to secure a healthier future for both buzzing pollinators and the humans who depend on them.
Sophia Burbank
Berkeley
Do more to protect
global water supply
Water pollution is contaminating our rivers, lakes and oceans, and to solve it, we need better waste management systems to prevent harmful substances from entering our water sources.
Water pollution harms ecosystems, wildlife and human health. Over 80% of wastewater is untreated, causing widespread damage. Communities relying on compromised water sources face disease outbreaks. The problem is caused by industrial waste, agricultural runoff and improper disposal methods.
Governments, industries and individuals must act. We need to reduce pollution, improve treatment and conserve water to protect our future.
Nishan Sidhu
Hayward