Letters to the Editor

Registered users may submit a Letter to the Editor after they first log in.

Editor:
Now that the Mueller Report has been completed, it’s time to reflect on what has been going on the last two years. Think of it! Despite all the sound and fury, all the screaming headlines, endless media commentaries, etc., Donald Trump claims that Mueller could come up with no evidence of collusion between Trump and the Russians, and could not even squeeze out an obstruction of justice charge.

Even those who dislike Trump should be upset that a president of the United States was subjected to two years of incessant attack and what was, in my opinion, an attempted coup. 

Think of how things were timed: Mueller’s indictment of 12 Russians three days before the Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki, or the hearings by the Democrats in Congress with Michael Cohen, the very same day that Trump was meeting with Kim Jung Un in Hanoi. I believe this was deliberate. 

What about the timing of the suspicious “chemical weapons attack” in Syria in 2017 and the pressure on Trump to respond (which he did) right when he was having his first meeting with President Xi of China?

It would be easy for Democrats to see the efforts of Trump and some of his allies to call for investigation of “the other side,” as mere partisan revenge. And surely there exists some of that. However, something much more serious is going on. We cannot let the presidency come under the kind of massive assault that has occurred over the past two years. Those in top positions, including John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper, top British intelligence officials, and even President Obama, who clearly knew much of what was going on, must be held to account, if this perversion of our system is not to happen again.

 

Hunter Cobb

Editor:
In his letter to the editor (“Wondering what students are
taught,” March 28), Chris Penn seems to be rather misinformed about how excess
carbon dioxide affects plant species when he refers to the “CO2 is plant food” myth. Here’s a quick explanation from Skeptical Science: https://skepticalscience.com/

The letter also asks a lot of questions about what Alameda’s students learn about climate change. California was one of the first states to adopt the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). These standards represent a comprehensive approach to teaching K-12 science focused on hands-on experiments, critical thinking and multidisciplinary concepts and patterns. 

Many classrooms in the Alameda Unified School District have already developed climate-change units through four disciplines — life science, earth science, chemistry and physics. This opens the door for more people to engage with the evidence, which is what everyone deserves.

Perhaps future generations will no longer have to spend their time debunking the common myths of climate change denial.

 

Nina Hollenberg

We’re all for solving homelessness and supporting the less fortunate. However supporting measure A and opposing measure B is a slap in the face of voting Alamedans that invites disaster.

Cost in city expenses and property values: Take a stroll through San Francisco’s Tenderloin and Mission districts some evening before you vote for building supportive housing in Alameda. The argument there will be little tax impact caused by building this center is laughable. The pro-center argument includes already approved funding is available, what’s not said is this funding is only for the first year.

The existing buildings proposed to become a new center are old dumps and will need to be retrofitted or rebuilt to avoid near term lawsuits. The additional law enforcement and ambulance services will be very costly.

Denies overwhelming majority votes for park expansion: In the case of Measures A and B disregard the previously established will of the voters who decisively supported Measures WW and FF to buy and expand Crab Cove into the full 7.5 acre McKay Avenue area. Alameda taxpayers already voted, raising $6.5M, and are still being taxed for those Measures. Alameda taxpayers will never see that money again if this misplaced center is approved. Bottom line is this sham should never have come into question. We want the park we voted for, not this atrocity that will ruin an otherwise rapidly improving neighborhood.

Homeless patient dumping: This summer CA SB 1152, the anti-homeless patient dumping law will come into effect. SB 1152 requires hospitals to transport homeless patients to a shelter within 30 miles or 30 minutes. The proposed Alameda Wellness Center will be ground zero for the fallout from this new law. Alameda County’s homeless population is growing fast, now approaching 10,000 people. 40% of the homeless report serious psychiatric and chronic health issues. Yearly 40% of the homeless report they are treated in an emergency room and 29% report they’ve been treated in an ambulance - every year! Combine that with the very recent 9th circuit ruling that the homeless cannot be displaced from public lands – such as Crown Beach Park or any of Alameda’s other parks and it’s not likely this proposed center will make Alameda a dumping ground for an unhealthy homeless population. Look at the encampments around Kaiser’s hospital; the homeless desperately, tragically, need healthcare.

Invites dangerous people: It’s only human to perceive the homeless as unlucky but honest citizens who’ve fallen on hard times. But statistically that’s not the reality; more than two-thirds of the community-defined homeless population in Alameda County had been in either jail or prison at some point in the past.

Alameda already does their fair share. We’re supporting hundreds of homeless in the old Naval Air Station – away from the parks and this is more permanent supportive housing. We’re just a small town, this problem is far too big to solve by carrying it on our backs..

Last, I and others are raising commitments toward a fund for transporting the inevitable vagrants that will be pulled into this west end dumping ground sham to other areas of Alameda; neighborhoods that are more likely to support this center’s land theft movement. Destinations will include where other nice neighborhood parks and schools are located where there is apparent support for panhandling, drug use, and general criminal low life behavior – think Earhart, Otis, Edison schools, South Shore, Park Street, city offices. Vote “no” on A; “yes” on B.

Mike Brownlee

Pages