Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
County should consider
alternatives to spraying
Re: “Spraying, bait planned after fruit fly, West Nile discoveries” (Page B3, Aug. 27).
Toxic pesticide fogging threatens our community, health, environment and ethical standards.
In a critical court ruling in January 2018, Judge Timothy M. Frawley exposed nine CEQA violations, demanding a rigorous EIR statewide. Why are our health and environment still being jeopardized?
The trade secret ingredients within Zenivex E4 and Merus 3.0 provoke grave health concerns. Vulnerable groups, including infants and the homeless, face unprecedented risks of pesticide exposure. Ecosystems crumble as natural habitats and essential mosquito predators are killed.
Demand that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adhere to the county ordinance and provide safer alternatives.
Cheriel Jensen
Saratoga
China could make
good partner for dam
Re: “Developer allegedly proposes China as partner in building huge $2.8B dam” (Page A1, Aug. 26).
While there might be initial hesitations about the idea of Chinese funding for the dam construction, I believe that the Santa Clara Valley Water District should consider the potential benefits of an international partnership.
China’s history of successful collaborations with other nations, as demonstrated by the construction of the 1.5-mile Peljesac bridge in Croatia, highlights the potential of such joint efforts. This monumental achievement serves as a symbol of pride and unity for the country. While the bridge was built in Croatia, its completion was made possible through a partnership with China and funding from the European Union.
Similarly, the potential benefits of collaborating with China on the new dam funding and construction should not be overlooked. This presents Santa Clara County with an incredible opportunity to take a progressive step forward, embracing the innovative potential of international partnerships and demonstrating a commitment to efficient and sustainable development.
Siqi Liu
Palo Alto
Restitution is critical
part of punishment
Re: “Bill would put end to juvenile restitution” (Page B1, Aug. 26).
Assembly Bill 1186, which would end youths being charged restitution fines, is another step in the wrong direction for California.
Once again, our elected officials in Sacramento are looking to reward criminal behavior by making offenders less accountable to their victims. We need people, especially those in their formative years, to be more accountable, not less. Victims should be compensated for their losses, but it is those who break the law, steal, commit assault and crimes against property that should pay for their deeds, not the law-abiding taxpayers. The fact that it may take a young person years to make restitution for what they’ve done should teach them a lesson, discouraging them from committing future crimes.
As a society, we select the amount of crime we will endure through our laws and enforcement. We have become too lax; the results are clear, and AB 1186 is more of the same.
Brent Jones
Santa Clara
Bible, and Christians,
recognize two genders
Re: “Tansgender people are also God’s children” (Page A6, Aug. 31).
Reader Mohan Raj urged Christians to accept transgender persons because the Bible says that all were “created in the image of God.” Curiously, left unfinished was the end of the same sentence: “male and female, created He them.”
As a Christian, I do try to accept all people as equally valuable, but that has no relationship to the topic at hand. For several millennia all religions and nations have accepted the obvious distinction between the two sexes. How did that all change in this young century? Who gets to make up these new rules? Does DNA not mean anything anymore?
I know if a loved one claims to have changed gender, it presents a lot of difficulties, but that doesn’t discount love, nor does it change the facts.
To accept a person does not mean to affirm their choices; to tolerate a person does not mean to affirm their behavior.
Thomas Watson
Cupertino
Justices on the take
should be expelled
Re: “Thomas defends his luxury private trips taken with a billionaire” (Page A2, Sept. 1).
Related Articles
Letters: Prison vision | True reform | Smell test | Difficult incentives | Israel’s Libya gambit
Letters: Neglected buildings | Sentencing reform | Headline misleads | Pointing finger | Online safety | Overpopulation
Letters: Causing gentrification | Housing falsehoods | Electric vehicles
Letters: Streamline transit | Residential treatment | Best choice | Mug shot | Bad situation
Letters: Reorganize BART | Homeless issue | Zoning decisions | King’s dream | Cancer screening
It is beyond belief that U.S. Supreme Court justices, namely, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, admit to accepting gifts.
In the case of Thomas, it was OK to accept gifts in the form of flights on private jets, luxury trips and vacations, real estate transactions, etc., from a billionaire acquaintance. All this and probably more are open to scrutiny, while simultaneously influencing the daily decisions facing these Supreme Court justices.
Justices who have been proven to accept gifts need to face automatic expulsion from the court. Their decisions cannot be trusted. Who might they be serving?
Susan Dillon
Morgan Hill
