In his recently published Marin Voice commentary (“Archbishop responds to Serra statue ‘restorative justice’,” Aug. 24), Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone complained bitterly that, after he decided to withdraw from the restorative justice process dealing with the toppling of the Junipero Serra statue in San Rafael, it concluded without his input. It’s clear to me that Cordileone believes that he alone could represent the Catholic “victims” of this vandalism.
While admitting that Indigenous people were victims of genocide, Cordileone wrote that it was “not perpetrated by Spaniards,” but rather by “Americans.” Furthermore, while “the Indigenous population did suffer abuse from the Spaniards,” it was mainly from “the soldiers,” not the Catholic missionaries.
Some of Cordileone’s assertions about history are disputed. According to “A Native American Encyclopedia: History, Culture, and Peoples” by Barry M. Pritzker, the genocidal decline in native population, mainly due to diseases like syphilis, began as soon as Spanish troops interacted with the local population. Native converts to Catholicism were required to live at the missions and conscripted into forced labor. Pritzker writes that, “disease, starvation, overwork, and torture decimated these tribes.” Any who escaped or refused to work were imprisoned and beaten or whipped.
A 2015 article in the New York Times states that Cordileone, “understood why Indians were upset, acknowledging the whippings and coercive environment.”
I understand Cordileone’s anger at the toppling of the statue on church property in San Rafael. It’s too bad that he didn’t take the time to explore a more complete history of the violence. Perhaps that would have allowed him to begin to understand the motivation of the “vandals.”
— Todd Silverstein, San Rafael
I am writing in response to the recently published Marin Voice commentary by Frank Lindh (“San Rafael parishioner extols restorative justice process,” Aug. 19). Lindh praises the results achieved by the restorative justice process employed to relieve five individuals from facing possible felony convictions for defacing, damaging and tearing down a statue of Junipero Serra at Mission San Rafael in 2020.
Lindh claims that the event was a “lawful” demonstration that “just got out of hand.” Whoever arrived at the church with spray paint, straps, tools and ropes showed clear intent of doing serious damage. It was even more troubling to hear that the numerous bystanders included members of the San Rafael Police Department.
The small group of parishioners who participated in the restorative justice process were not representative of the congregation at large. Therefore, the process was not fair to both parties. It was not open to the public. It dragged on for nearly four years before all charges were conditionally dropped in favor of “diversion.”
From my perspective, a real restorative justice process never took place. The admissions of guilt and letters of apology were never delivered to the St. Raphael’s parish congregation. I see no evidence of any reparations being paid to repair the destruction.
— Richard Gallagher, San Rafael
Assemblymember Damon Connolly’s Assembly Bill 1778 has now passed through the California Legislature and awaits the governor’s signature. Unfortunately, this well-intentioned attempt to address the problem of class 2 electric-assist bike accidents involving young riders falls short.
The bill prohibits use of “class 2 e-bikes” to those under the age of 16, but it only levies a $25 fine per violation. This is not sufficient to motivate adherence — it sends a message that breaking the law is not serious. The bill should be strengthened and, in the interim, local Marin ordinances must be established to address the problem.
Class 2 e-bikes have a throttle-controlled electric motor propelling riders up to 20 mph without pedaling. They are essentially electric mopeds. The use of these, and the more powerful look-alike throttle e-bikes, has led to so many accidents — especially for younger riders and their passengers.
The problem has become obvious. Kids zoom about our streets. The Marin County Health and Humans Services Department has documented an “alarming” increase in 911 calls, accidents and serious injuries for youth resulting from e-bike accidents.
I was happy to read about the Marin County Office of Education’s e-bike safety plan. However, this excellent effort needs to be supported by meaningful regulation. Throttle-controlled e-bikes should be regulated in a manner consistent with the reality that they are motor vehicles. Short of a driver’s license requirement, regulation prohibiting use of class 2 bikes by those under 16 needs to include a significant enough fine to be taken seriously: perhaps $250. Enforcement could be at the discretion of local authorities based on the issues in their communities, as well as staffing realities and priorities.
I think the possibility of a significant fine, along with public education, can change behavior without police involvement.
— Dr. Jonathan Freudman, San Rafael
On Aug. 20, the Marin County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution proclaiming September “Marin Biodiversity Month.” This recognizes the importance of our county’s biodiversity and the efforts to protect it. Happy Marin Biodiversity Month to all.
— Paul G. da Silva, Larkspur
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a nonstarter like Proposition N on San Anselmo’s November ballot.
There’s no need to look beyond the math. It would cap rent increases at no more than 60% of inflation. This means that landlords are consigned to lose ground vis-a-vis the rest of the economy every year of any tenancy. It’s a one way, downward ratchet of return.
I doubt any economically rational person would ever create rental housing, invest in its upkeep or even stay in the rental market under such an incentive structure. I think there are reasonable rent control measures that would make landlords shock absorbers in the event of inflationary spikes like we’ve recently experienced. But it’s entirely counterproductive to the provision of rental housing to preclude landlords from ever recovering rents commensurate with the consumer price index over the longer term.
— Stewart Johnson, San Anselmo
In his recently published Another View commentary, John M. Crisp suggests that looking for life on Mars is a distraction from solving the problems confronting life on Earth (“Life on Mars? How about life on Earth?,” Aug. 26). I disagree.
We are capable of “walking and chewing gum” at the same time, though, as a species, we seem to be unwilling to exercise those muscles.
Regardless, there are bigger issues. Famed theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking thought we needed a backup planet. The philosopher Nick Bostrom hoped we would not find remnants of life on Mars, because finding it increases the probability of a “great filter” that destroys intelligent life everywhere before it can make contact with other intelligences. The existence of a filter would answer physicist Enrico Fermi’s question, “if intelligent life elsewhere is so probable, why haven’t we met it?”
The threats to humanity concerning Crisp could actually be earthly manifestations of this filter. We need to find out. I, for one, am concerned that humans, as we now exist, are incapable of solving our problems and only some form of enhancement can fix that. That makes me a “transhumanist.” With a pacemaker in my chest, I can already call myself a “cyborg.” Why not something similar to make my brain (and yours) capable of solving our collective problems of existence?
— Chet Seligman, Point Reyes Station
