Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Re: “Why did the pier in Santa Cruz collapse?” (Page A1, Dec. 29).
In your coverage of the very sad collapse of 150 feet off the end of the half-mile Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf, you focus on bird protection and a community group’s lawsuit as delaying needed repairs. This is inaccurate. Neither birds nor the lawsuit delayed the much-needed piling replacement at the wharf’s end.
In 2014, the city’s engineering report documented that 5% of the wharf’s 4,445 pilings were sufficiently damaged to require replacement. The city has had 10 years to replace those pilings. Work at the vulnerable end of the wharf started only this year after one of those pilings failed in the storm of 2023.
Our lawsuit, filed in 2022 in response to the city’s inadequate environmental review of its plan to significantly alter the historic wharf, specifically stated that all maintenance work, including pile replacement, could proceed without challenge during that time period.
Neither we — nor the birds — want to be made the scapegoats for this unfortunate event.
Gillian GreensiteSanta Cruz
Re: “Report blasts animal shelter” (Page A1, Dec. 11).
On Dec. 3, a cute pit bull by the name of Rufus, who had been at the San Jose Animal Care Center for 11 months, underwent a simple neuter surgery performed by the shelter’s medical director. Post-op, Rufus was placed back in his original kennel. There was no indication in the medical record that he was being monitored. Later, he was found by staff with no heartbeat.
At a recent City Council meeting, the shelter’s medical director, when explaining the death of Rufus, told elected officials and the concerned public that “there was no neglect, no fault. It was a freak accident.” Yet no cause of death was given.
Sadly, there has been no third-party medical investigation of Rufus’ death to help restore the public trust. I made a request to a deputy city manager for a third-party investigation that was ignored.
Michael WagnerMorgan Hill
Re: “PG&E rate-hike respite on the way” (Page A1, Dec. 31).
California ratepayers have been asking for lower electricity rates. If rates actually moderate as suggested in this article, thank you, PG&E.
Stabilization of electricity rates with hope for reductions will help our fight to lower carbon emissions. We need to reduce and eliminate use of fossil fuels. Our best plans to meet carbon reduction goals include electrification of our homes and buildings and transition to electric vehicles. Electrification will take longer to do if electricity rates don’t stabilize.
Our climate plans also require more electricity generation with renewables. Since electricity generation with renewables now costs less than with fossil fuels, we hope electricity will become cheaper going forward.
To reach our climate goals the investor-owned utilities must be part of the solution.
Rob HogueMenlo Park
The inequity of Electoral College outcomes has many calling for presidential election by the national popular vote. But in our democratic republic, the people are entitled only to equity in representation. Congress meets that representational condition.
Distinct election districts for each of 435 House members and popular election of two senators per state provide every voter with representation and each member of Congress with a defined constituency. However, the Electoral College does not conform; winner-take-all state laws deliver all of the state’s electoral votes to the majority candidate, thereby depriving the state-wide minority of representation in the national outcome. Correction of that representational inequity merely requires the definition of distinct constituencies for each of the 535 electors, most logically the corresponding constituencies that already exist for the 535 members of Congress.
The people would then acquire representation in presidential elections equivalent to that provided in the election of Congress.
Jerry MeyerSan Jose
Re: “The internal MAGA H-1B visa fight exposes some cultural contradictions” (Page A6, Jan. 1).
Why are we not prioritizing education for young Americans who are interested in the tech industry? College is too expensive; housing is too expensive; everything that a college student needs is too expensive.
It’s much cheaper to bring in the educated from other countries and offer them the opportunities for a higher standard of living. We have the brightest and the best right here in our own country. The cost is too high if we don’t let our most talented and hardworking get an education because of too many barriers. A low-wage job is an alternative for them. Unfortunately, many Americans don’t want those jobs.
With more education opportunities we would not have so many unemployed men or too many tech immigrants.
Patricia Marquez RuttRedwood City
