Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Stop the ill-advised,
costly BART extension
The BART extension was sold as being $4.4 billion and opening in 2026. Today’s guess is $12.75 billion opening in 2037.
Based on history, no responsible adult would believe costs will not grow massively and completion will be much delayed. It is time to stop this disaster-in-the-making until an honest estimate is completed and a cost vs. benefit study done. (VTA is incapable of doing this themselves.) I believe this will show a huge cost for minimal benefits.
Downtown San Jose is not and will never be the center of mass transit needs in Silicon Valley. Our children will thank us for stopping this waste now so they don’t have to pay for the completion of an overpriced, little-used boondoggle.
James Parissenti
Santa Clara
Stanford protest leaves
one unimpressed
Re: “Group walks out of graduation” (Page B1, June 17).
The no-risk political pantomime performed by a relative handful of graduating Stanford students leaves me unimpressed.
While I do admire their standing up for their beliefs, they had no skin in the game, as the saying goes. There was little to no risk of their being arrested as a result of their action, nor, I note, were any of them so upset by “the university’s inaction regarding student demands for divestment” that they refused their diplomas.
These protests continue to receive disproportionate media attention. According to recent polling, only 13% of “young voters” rate the Gaza war as their top concern, while a mere 8% have ever participated in protests on either side.
Andrew Daniels
Santa Cruz
State must do more
to mitigate fire danger
Re: “Point Fire prompts evacuations in Sonoma County, burns 1,100 acres” (June 16).
I am saddened to learn that the Point Fire is one of 11 wildfires currently burning in California, already consuming 1,100 acres of land. This news reporting has highlighted the severe impact of the wildfire on the community and the extensive damage inflicted on nearby residents.
Although we are still early in the summer dry season, I appreciate Robert Salonga’s efforts in raising awareness about wildfires. Now I know that there are steps citizens can take to mitigate such disasters, such as burning less wood. His timely message is crucial in encouraging the community to adopt heightened preventive measures, which can help avert future tragedies.
Christopher Xu
San Jose
We need Newsom’s
gun safety amendment
Re: “Newsom is hawking gun reform, but is anybody listening?” (Page A1, April 21).
It was disappointing to see that Gov. Newsom’s proposal for a gun safety 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ignored by all other states.
Related Articles
Letters: Safe Fourth | Climate change | Criminal justice reform | Felon president | AIPAC influence
Letters: Alito’s bias | Trump’s qualities
Letters: Russia’s weakness | Expensive policies | Nation’s conscience
Letters: Fund police | Spread risk | Sacrificing rights | Headline misleads | Backup plan
Letters: Boon for VTA | SJUSD accountability | Nothing to show | Climate change
By every measure gun violence has been increasing for years. In fact, 2021 had a gun total death record of 48,830 victims. Meanwhile, in 2023 alone, Americans purchased 16.7 million guns.
Unfortunately, the 236-year-old Constitution says nothing about gun types or usage. But, with weapons technology so advanced and lethal, current citizens need to define gun safety rules for today’s armed country.
Newsom’s proposal includes four popular gun restrictions: background checks; age 21 to purchase; wait times between purchase and possession; ban on assault weapons sales.
We need to define and enact a constitutional guideline for the 21st century and beyond, so we should welcome a gun safety 28th Amendment.
Patricia Faust
Menlo Park
