Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Infrastructure lacking
for all-electric buildings
Re: “Cities suspend natural gas bans in buildings” (Page A1, May 27).
How worrisome and aggravating is the recently imposed mandate that bans gas in all new construction? Yes, I get it, it’s urgent to protect the environment, but there has to be logic and wisdom when imposing these restrictions.
Only ideologically insane politicians, void of any common sense, would mandate that all new buildings be all electric without having in place an infrastructure that adequately supports the inevitable surge in electricity use.
While every new building has to have solar, that system is not very efficient if a house doesn’t have enough sun exposure. It still leaves customers dependent on expensive PG&E electricity. In San Jose, if a person requests an inactive gas line be allowed in new construction, just in case, their reply is no.
Forcing people to go all-electric for new construction right now is the equivalent of forcing people to just buy electric vehicles right now. It’s outrageous and crazy.
Marta Duncan
San Jose
Suspending gas bans
is a red flag for climate
Re: “Cities suspend natural gas bans in buildings” (Page A1, May 27).
Stephanie Lam’s article on the suspension of natural gas reach codes in Bay Area cities should alarm us all.
In a decade when severe weather is increasing, U.S. consumers continue to use more gas and electricity. The concerns about fallback energy sources are valid and shed a light on our desire to not change our lifestyles to reduce our greenhouse gas footprint. A typical residence emits more than a ton of greenhouse gases per year.
Each of us should look for opportunities to reduce our consumption of natural gas.
Dave Clark
San Mateo
Private schools’ added
fees unaccounted for
Re: “Is school choice today’s civil rights issue? Yes, end teacher unions’ control” (Page A13, May 26).
In the opinion piece by Corey DeAngelis, I want to point out a fallacy in the article.
Related Articles
Letters: Regional plan | Wrong message | Women’s health | Poor leadership
Letters: Misguided plan | Repurpose building | A real choice | Even application | Map for future
Letters: Housing rules | Oakland gem | Different stories | Enough Trump | Fix humanity | Restore balance
Letters: Shut down recycler | Trans athletes | No rodeos
Letters: Price recall | Trump coverage | Trans athletes
The author states that the state shells out $20,000 per student in taxpayer funds for public education and $13,000 per student in private school without explanation. I am going to assume that was for political purposes because I would expect public education costs to be higher as they are best able to address the needs of special education students that private institutions are ill-equipped to serve. Private institutions are not more efficient or better than public education when you factor in special education requirements and the legally required individualized education programs, which often involve social services, mental health and other agencies.
The author failed to mention that outside of the base tuition, private institutions have a plethora of additional fees for other programs and services.
Mark Grzan
Morgan Hill
