Letters: Investor buyers | Migrant flights | Impound planes | Income-based billing | Keep perspective

Re: “ ” (Page A6, June 6). Letter writer Beth Weber-Guarino uses a bad example of Santa Cruz in trying to drum up opposition to , which would tax short-term rentals. Santa Cruz residents deserve to have more housing made available for residents, not for out-of-town partiers who want cheap vacations.

The truth is that in Santa Clara County, according to Airbnb tracking websites, over 80% of short-term rentals are owned by two entities. It’s mostly not mom-and-pop renting out a spare bedroom as originally intended. Houses are purchased out of the long-term rental market for this purpose, breaking down communities, pricing out potential owner-occupants and making it harder for young people to get a foot in the door of home ownership.

I’m writing to my legislators to encourage them to vote for SB 584. Re: “ ” (Page A1, June 6). I weep tears of despair for migrants who are being exploited.

I weep tears of outrage toward those who conceived and encouraged others to participate in the despicable act of transporting migrants to other states. I weep tears of profound sadness at the welcome migrants receive. I weep tears of lost pride in this country l call home.

I weep tears for the future of our land. Re: “ ” (Page A1, June 6). I am unable to board a plane to fly anywhere inside or outside the United States without presenting to the TSA and the airline government-issued proof of my identity.

Yet somehow, troublemakers in other states can charter aircraft, load them with what they call “undocumented” people, and fly them to California. Maybe California should pass a law impounding aircraft whose owners/operators have not complied with travel requirements for their passengers to present government-issued proof of identity before boarding. Or maybe those travelers do have such proof of identity, and the troublemakers are simply lying about their immigration status, in order to foment the trouble they want to cause.

requires the California Public Utilities Commission to create an income-based fee for the state’s utility customers. Charging for electricity based on income regardless of usage is unfair. The obvious example is that a person who for whatever reason be it a solar system or simple frugality uses very little electricity will be charged in a completely disproportionate manner.

Of concern is that investor-owned utilities such as PG&E will obtain income information from the Franchise Tax Board (FTB). This seems blatantly improper and fraught with the possibility of significant mishandling. There is no reason to believe that PG&E is more adept than other companies at managing risk.

Also of concern is the effect this new proposal will have on rooftop solar energy production and storage. This proposal will reduce the motivation for potential new customers to invest in and install solar power. AB 205 should be rejected.

Re: “ ” (Page A6, June 6). I agree with Manny Morales’ take on the recent debt limit compromise (letters: 6-6-23). As an octogenarian, I remember fondly a number of occasions when congressional representatives used to bargain in good faith.

I do think, however, that it should have been noted that in this instance one side’s bottom line was “If you fellows can’t be a little more reasonable, we won’t like you very much, and we will urge everyone to vote against you in the next election”, while the other side’s ultimatum was, “If you people don’t cave to what we are demanding, we are going to crash the economy and set off a worldwide depression, the likes of which will make the 1930s look like a picnic at the beach. ” Let’s keep a little perspective here. .