Regarding the recent letter, “BART was called a boondoggle too,” yes, BART takes people from Point A to Point B. But it still is a financial boondoggle.
If you buy a ticket on an airplane, the price of the ticket pays the cost of the service. This suggests the employees earn their money by providing a service that people are willing to pay for.
The ticket price on BART doesn’t even pay the employees’ salaries — let alone the maintenance costs, benefit packages or 30-year bonds used to build the system. BART employees are allowed to go on strike and hold the public hostage in order to get a wage and benefit package greater than people doing work of equivalent skill in the private sector. If the BART system charged a ticket price that would pay the cost of operating the system, people would find alternate ways of getting to work.
There was another letter to the editor on the same page which alluded to the fact that government does not have enough money to deal with the homeless problem. I submit that a factor for that is BART sucking up an excessive amount of the available tax revenue. I challenge you to list the amount of tax revenue BART is receiving from each of the many tax revenue sources they are sucking dry.
The high-speed train will also require taxpayer funds forever to subsidize a substantial part of its cost of operation. This is in part because it will be run by state government employees who will receive a wage and benefit package that is greater than people doing the equivalent jobs in the private sector. There is only so much money from taxpayer sources. Every new program that drains the available money takes away from existing programs.
— Peter Muzio, Alameda
Elect leaders who support communities, not the NRA
The marches and speeches by children and young adults fighting against the spread of guns in their schools brought me to tears.
At 91, it saddens my heart that we must follow the lead of our courageous children — who should be enjoying a care-free time of their lives — because our elected leaders do not have the courage to do their job. In my youth, we roamed far afield of our neighborhood, without need for parents to watch over our safety. How our country has changed.
I simply refuse to believe that our children have to live in fear of being shot, as they do now. Let us spend our taxes on solving this problem of violence in order to rebuild community instead of building walls. Let us elect citizens who rule in the name of communities rather than in the interests of the NRA.
— Dorothy Otis, Concord
Dredging up past to change names could go on forever
So Alameda Democrats et al. are upset over the name of Henry Height Elementary School and wish to change it because former 1800s Gov. Henry Haight, though a prominent local businessman, Democrat Party member, University of California regent and philanthropist was … a “racist!”
Why, those hyprocrites! By today’s standards, anyone born more than 40 years ago would be a “racist.” Let me enlighten you with some recent California history: In 1950, “racism” was quite prevalent in California. Although bus lines and movie theaters were “integrated,” the YMCA allowed blacks to swim only on Thursdays; most bowling alleys refused black people access outright; the California National Guard was still segregated (even though President Truman had decreed that the armed forces would no longer be); and restaurants and bars could legally refuse black patrons.
On Sept. 18, 1950, combat fighter pilots of Navy squadron VF-32 (USS Leyte) were celebrating their last day in the United States before sailing for Korea. Among them was Ensign Jesse Leroy Brown, the first black fighter pilot to fly from an aircraft carrier. They were in a prominent downtown San Diego hotel bar when the waiter informed the group that the hotel policy was not to serve blacks.
Obviously, those conditions do not exist today. And the feigned outrage of the Alameda socialist Democrats over an elementary school named for a prominent California personage of a century ago seems somewhat contrived to me.
— Bruce Ekerick, Alameda
Bridge toll hikes only fair if plan funded by all equally
Regarding a recent editorial on “Why you should vote for flawed $3 bridge toll hike,” the bridge toll hike is another easy assault on other people’s money.
Why didn’t your editorial go any further than “the bridge toll hike also raises fairness issues?” You acknowledge that the burden falls mostly on East Bay commuters and the benefit is a boon for Silicon Valley.
The 50/50 vote will be among a population that is 80 percent not affected by the annual $750 increased cost of living. Of course it may pass, but have a vote to increase every property tax in the Bay Area by $750 and see how it does.
Please use your position to insist that our leaders develop an overall plan, funded by all people in the Bay Area equally, and then come back and we will discuss the toll hike as a possible part of the solution. This toll hike proposal is low-hanging fruit, and it is ridiculously flawed and unfair.
— Paul Knauff, Pleasant Hill