Re: “ ” (Page A1, May 31). San Jose could pay $18. 9 million for a 10-year lease on 6.
3 acres for a sanctioned parking site to allow up to 85 RVs to park; “costs could exceed $24 million [taxpayer money] over a half decade if on-site improvements and services expenses are included,” all to help homeless folks. Yet, “San Jose had 4,316 off-market empty homes in 2020” ( , July 20). Empty homes mean falling enrollment and less state money for local schools.
(There is an empty home at the end of my street. ) As of a May 30 , Santa Clara County has 1,226 homeless families. The absentee owners of empty homes passively watch the value of their properties increase.
A nice investment for them, but at a big expense to local taxpayers. San Jose needs an empty home tax to help discourage unoccupied rental housing and to help fund affordable housing. Re: “ ” (Page A1, May 31).
At an estimated annual cost of $28,000 for each of the 85 RV spaces contemplated under the proposed Berryessa 10-year land lease, the city of San Jose has once again proven that local government is simply unable to engineer cost-efficient solutions to address its problems — in this case, addressing a very minor sliver of our homeless problem. For easily less than one-third the cost of the Berryessa land lease, the city could quickly provide vouchers to the same current 85, city-street RV dwellers to pay for semi-permanent residence at any number of operating county RV parks. Wouldn’t the result be identical? Why then must our elected officials insist upon spending way more money than is necessary? The answer is quite simple — it’s really easy when you’re spending other people’s money.
Welcome to the homeless-industrial complex. Re: “ ” (Page B4, May 30). The article spells doom for California’s coastline.
As a climate activist, behavioral psychology enthusiast, and millennial raised in the Bay Area, I find the lack of solutions-oriented coverage in this piece unacceptable for readers. Numerous scientific studies have shown that a barrage of negative news into shutdown. Any newspaper committed to “telling accurate and compelling stories that make an impact” should feature people actually working on positive impact.
The coastline article focuses on damages, monetary loss and danger. This well-intentioned climate coverage can be dangerous to readers’ mental health. The alarmism inserts yet another barrier for readers wanting to get involved in creating a healthier, safer Bay Area.
We want to protect the beautiful coastline we love so much as Californians — The Mercury News can and should tell us how. Re: “ ” (Page A6, May 30). The original parent complaint regarding Amanda Gorman’s work did not mention “age appropriateness.
” It made the political charge of “indoctrination” and claimed it contained “hate speech” and provided page numbers. While there may sometimes be legitimate reasons for some library or school actions regarding “age appropriateness,” some rethinking was needed here. And there was only one complaint.
When I was in third and fourth grade, I was reading novels that were at least high school level. When I asked a librarian for help to find a book, she took me to what I called “kids’ books. ” I was insulted … but she did help me find a book at my reading level.
And my parents would check out books for me from the “grown-up” part of the library. .
From: mercurynews
URL: https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/06/01/letters-1293/
