I want to thank Marin IJ Assistant Lifestyles Editor Colleen Bidwill for her inspiring Marin Snapshot Q&A about Marin teacher Lisa Levin and her “reading dog” Stinson (“Corte Madera woman and dog Stinson help kids enjoy reading,” Aug. 20).
They were featured at Sausalito’s Books by the Bay Reading to Rover program this month.
There are so many unsung teachers like Levin who continue to give so much back to the community and our children. Many thanks to all of them.
— Paul Bonapart, Corte Madera
I have been reading for at least 20 years about studies commissioned by the Marin Municipal Water District to ensure our water supply. I cannot believe that the MMWD Board of Directors is again considering a study on the same topic (“Marin water utility set to begin studies of new supply options,” Aug. 19). There cannot be many new answers to the same questions.
I think the district board owes ratepayers answers about how much this new study will cost, what it will accomplish that previous studies have not, how many previous studies have been commissioned (as well as the total cost of all studies) and, if previous studies have left unanswered questions, whether a new limited study addresses these questions specifically.
I know that this is a complex issue. I also know that effective solutions implemented now could circumvent expensive, temporary measures when we have the next serious drought. If another study is needed, ratepayers should be provided with a clear justification and a well-defined decision process leading to effective actions.
— Alan Blumenthal, Corte Madera
The lawsuit filed by homeless advocates against San Rafael (“San Rafael sued over new homeless camping restrictions,” Aug. 15) is the latest example of why we can’t solve this problem. There is an imbalance of power where the homeless people appear to have more rights than cities and communities.
This problem started with the specious decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (aka Martin v. Boise) that it is cruel and unusual punishment to remove a homeless person from their encampment without providing them with housing. I believe that’s what started this “free housing for all” outlook.
The American Civil Liberties Union has opposed any effort to assess and require mentally ill and drug-addicted homeless people to accept mandatory treatment along with provided housing. This resulted in counseling being only a suggestion in provided housing such as the one planned for 1251 S. Eliseo Drive in Larkspur.
Professionals know that mentally ill people don’t think that they are, and drug addicts think they have the drugs under control, so I believe most do not elect optional counseling.
The court decision should be challenged and sent to the Supreme Court. Perhaps the ACLU can rethink its opposition to mandatory treatment. With respect to mentally ill homeless people, a recent op-ed by Pulitzer Prize winner David Oshinsky in the Wall Street Journal titled “It’s time to bring back asylums” made an excellent case to bring facilities back with a more modern touch.
Perhaps we can divert some homeless funds to build such facilities and hire trained professionals to staff them. In the interim, perhaps San Rafael’s regulation of campsites could be an ideal option.
— Robert Stenson, Larkspur
I read with sadness and dismay about the challenges facing retailers in the face of apparent rampant theft (“Marin retailers frustrated by brazen thefts, weak defenses,” Aug. 20).
So, let me get this straight. Businesses that actually survived the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic shutdown, and are able to actually get employees in their doors, now face this? That’s absurd.
Modifying down the $950 misdemeanor to felony threshold is the very least society can do to support businesses. If no action is taken, someone is likely to get hurt or worse.
And, of course, you know who pays for that theft? You and I, the people who bring our own bags to the check out and pay with cash or a credit card.
— Joseph Brooke, Point Reyes Station
