Letters to the Editor
Hooray for Michael Cosentino’s letter (“America is about automobiles,” May 7). I could not agree more, but let’s not stop there.
Let’s make it illegal to take transit, bike or walk in Alameda. Get those wackos behind the wheel where they belong. Sure, this might increase traffic congestion, air pollution, global warming, oil imports, car crashes, obesity and parking problems, but think of the boon for our auto repair shops and gas stations.
Also, parking problems on Shore Line Drive could easily be solved by paving over the beach. What a waste of space!
In response to the article regarding how the city is cutting water use, (“Water Use in Alameda,” April 23) if we are short on water, why are we putting more people here?
How much harder must Alameda residents and businesses cut their water consumption in order to accommodate water needs for the new residences (and businesses) that are just now coming or will come “on line” in the future?
The East Bay Municipal Utilities District’s (and the state of California’s) new rules are to cut consumption for “the region.”
New residences and new businesses will consume more water than the zero gallons that they currently consume.
Some cities are halting their new developments because the infrastructure needs for existing residences and businesses are insufficient.
There is no new water supply for new developments.
The water needs for new developments must come out of the supply allocations that are currently consumed by existing residents and businesses.
The city of Alameda will be needlessly (or intentionally?) harming its existing residents and businesses if they must make more cuts to their own water consumption in order to provide water for new residences and businesses.
Due to the water crisis, the city of Alameda must address water allocations for all the new residences and businesses that the city is authorizing.
Editor’s note: The city’s official statement answering this concern appears in the related story "Good to the Last Drop" in front page news.
I read Michele Ellson’s article, (“Landlords Use Duplicitous Eviction Method in Town,” April 30) and could not find evidence of landlords’ duplicity.
From the facts in the article, the landlords are following the law, giving 60-day notice to end tenancy, and tenants are experiencing disruption in their lives.
Calling the landlords duplicitous reads like yellow journalism to me. In the context of the greater Bay Area housing market, rent increases and rental unit turnover in Alameda is hardly surprising.
Did the writer or editorial staff not believe that their descriptions of the tenants’ difficulties would be enough to elicit compassion from readers of the Sun?