{"id":8714908,"date":"2023-01-12T16:00:11","date_gmt":"2023-01-13T00:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.eastbaytimes.com\/?p=8714908&preview=true&preview_id=8714908"},"modified":"2023-01-13T03:58:34","modified_gmt":"2023-01-13T11:58:34","slug":"letters-1114","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.eastbaytimes.com\/2023\/01\/12\/letters-1114\/","title":{"rendered":"Letters: Climate cost | CEQA works | Council disruptors | Meet in the middle | Wasted votes | No surprise"},"content":{"rendered":"

Submit your letter to the editor via this form<\/a>. Read more Letters to the Editor<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The cost of climateinaction is too steep<\/h4>\n

Re: “Major flooding swamps Santa Cruz Mountains<\/a>,” Page A1, Jan. 10:<\/p>\n

Tuesday’s front-page headline looks very familiar. For the past two weeks, The Mercury News has featured the storms in California, and especially the Bay Area, either as a headline or somewhere on the front page. Not long ago, the headlines featured the devastation caused by wildfires. Not coincidentally, both of these types of events occur in the same areas, as barren hillsides give way to mudslides once the weather changes.<\/p>\n

Extreme weather events caused $115 billion in insured losses<\/a>\u00a0worldwide in 2022, a reminder that the cost of climate inaction is far greater than the cost of taking action. We need more policy solutions to quickly reduce climate pollution and fast-track a clean-energy future that benefits all Americans.<\/p>\n

Renee Hinson<\/strong>Mountain View<\/em><\/p>\n

CEQA is effectivelyserving its purpose<\/h4>\n

Dan Walters\u2019 Jan. 8 column (“Environmental law’s misuse blocking housing brings calls for CEQA reform<\/a>,” Page A9) seems to imply that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) involves approval or denial of development proposals. But CEQA simply requires analysis, mitigation and public disclosure of those projects\u2019 harmful environmental impacts. Furthermore, CEQA contains broad exemptions for multifamily affordable housing.<\/p>\n

A prime example of how CEQA is working to protect the environment while also defending disadvantaged communities is the Sargent Ranch Quarry project that has been proposed on the sacred indigenous landscape of Juristac<\/a>. This open-pit sand and gravel mine would cause 14 separate significant and unavoidable impacts to the Juristac tribal cultural landscape, wildlife connectivity, air quality and scenic vistas. <\/p>\n

Without CEQA, none of these devastating environmental impacts would have been analyzed or revealed to the public \u2014 or to the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band. Don\u2019t be fooled by over-heated rhetoric; CEQA is working well.<\/p>\n

Alice Kaufman<\/strong>Palo Alto<\/em><\/p>\n

City council disruptorstrample First Amendment<\/h4>\n

Joe Mathews writes about how politicians badly treat protesters who disrupt city council meetings (“Mutual contempt \u2014 one-sided protection<\/a>,” Page A9, Jan. 8). It is a sort of “plague on both your houses” type of argument.<\/p>\n

Mathews and most other commentators miss the main point \u2014 the mistreatment of those well-behaved citizens who are there to observe, learn, and voice their opinions.<\/p>\n

The First Amendment to the Constitution protects \u201cthe right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\u201d<\/p>\n

Those who disrupt a properly organized meeting and those who abuse their authority in such meetings are trampling on the rights of those citizens who are behaving and trying to exercise their rights as Americans. We should come up with a way to remove the disrupters and authoritarians and take them away from the public meeting.<\/p>\n

The rest of civil society can then proceed upon their mission of creating a better democracy.<\/p>\n

John Cormode<\/strong>Mountain View<\/em><\/p>\n

GOP, Dems shouldmeet in the middle<\/h4>\n

Re. “How minority rule could be used to implode U.S. democracy in 2023<\/a>,” Page A6, Jan. 10:<\/p>\n

Why is it we have come to assume that thoughtful congresspersons will always vote along party lines? Sure, a minority of Republicans can prevent a simple majority if the Democrats all vote against anything the Republicans bring up for a vote. Why does this need to be?<\/p>\n

The country isn’t split 50-50. It’s more like 10-80-10 except the 10 on each extreme are allowed to hold the rest of us hostage. It’s about time centrists on both sides start talking to each other.<\/p>\n

Phil Arnold<\/strong>Redwood City<\/em><\/p>\n

Democrats wasted votesduring speaker battle<\/h4>\n

House Democratic unity in voting for a speaker was admirable but pointless.<\/p>\n

They could have identified a Republican congressmember that the Democrats could best work with. With the votes of all Democrats and only 5 Republicans, that Republican could have become speaker.<\/p>\n

There is something wrong with this strategy.<\/p>\n

Vanya Matzek<\/strong>Cupertino<\/em><\/p>\n

Shooting by 6-year-oldshould not surprise<\/h4>\n

On Friday, Jan. 6, a 6-year-old first-grader in Virginia pulled out a gun in class and shot his teacher.<\/p>\n