Getting your
Trinity Audioplayer ready...Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Opinion piece pushes dated downtown vision
Re: “San Jose’s downtown requires workers more than soccer fans” (Page A6, July 16).
Larry Stone’s column on downtown San Jose’s struggles reads less like a well-researched economic analysis and more like nostalgia for the outdated 20th‑century office core. It assumes dragging workers back to a 40‑hour office week will “save” downtown.
In a county where six‑figure incomes barely cover housing and basics, many residents simply don’t have spare cash for dinners, drinks and events downtown. Not to mention, for decades predating COVID, San Jose’s own development strategy has tried to lure people into downtown, which nobody wants to go to.
The problems we see today are about affordability and housing; dated concepts will not solve these modern problems. Any serious discussion should start there instead of blaming people who no longer sit at downtown desks all week.
California Biordi
Santa Clara
State must balance economy, environment
Re: “Poll points to strong Prop. 45 backing” (Page A1, July 16). The article about polls showing Proposition 45 looking like a winner is sad. It is the ancient false dichotomy between the environment versus the economy.
Proposition 45 would drastically weaken CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act — the state’s main general environmental protection law. They cite the affordability crisis as an excuse to lessen protection for the environment, but you can’t ensure affordability by harming our vital environment.
A strong economy and a healthy environment go together. They depend on each other — and we need both. Proposition 45 is a loser.
Vicky Hoover
San Francisco
Outlawing algorithm won’t end housing crisis
Re: “California’s Legislature can lower rents with these bills” (Page A10, June 26).
The June 26th op-ed gets two things right: Californians, particularly working families, need more affordable housing; and additional housing supply is the solution.
But ironically, the author also suggests outlawing data-based rental pricing tools. Such bans might hurt the investment Californians desperately need to increase housing supply. Property developers would be greatly disincentivized to build in areas where modern management tools are forbidden. San Francisco restricted the use of algorithmic rent pricing in October 2024, and rents are climbing faster there than in any other city in the nation — 22% year-over-year, in fact.
Tackling California’s affordable housing crisis will take a concerted effort to boost supply, not outlawing an algorithm based on false assumptions that it enables collusion and price-fixing.
Mario H. Lopez
Hispanic Leadership Fund
Washington, D.C.
Regulating appliances only makes life harder
Re: “Regulators must answer electrification questions” (Page A6, July 16). It’s not the answer that Rob Hogue desires. He starts with the misguided notion that electric appliances are emission-free and ends with the equally wrong recommendation that regulating to eliminate gas appliances will make life easier for homeowners. When did more regulation ever make things easier?
Electricity is not clean. Electricity remains expensive, substantially generated from fossil fuels. Necessary battery improvement can require environmentally damaging mining. Strain on the fragile electrification grid structure adds cost and risk of dropouts. Claims of cleaner, cheaper electricity are based largely on wishful thinking and the expectation of technological improvement.
The Mercury News reports (“Poll points to strong Prop. 45 backing,” Page A1, July 16) that supporters of California
Proposition 45argue it would lower housing, energy and water costs by cutting regulation. Regulating new appliance requirements would negate much of that potential gain.
Despite promised improvement, electrification that excludes alternative energy sources flies in the face of both affordability and environmental benefit.
Fred Gutmann
Cupertino
Bridge toll hikes are tax that needs repeal
SB 595/RM 3 raised the toll on seven bridges to pay for 35 Bay Area transportation projects. It is unfair, regressive and misapplied.
It’s unfair. Here is an analogy: Santa Clara County defines 12 transportation projects around the county, and raises a tax to pay for these — but imposes the tax only on the residents and businesses in Sunnyvale. This would be obviously unfair. This toll tax does the same, imposing this tax only on residents and businesses that cross the bridges.
It’s regressive: On average, lower-income people and businesses cross these bridges from lower-income counties to higher-income counties for employment or business clients.
It’s misapplied: This tax is paying for 35 projects around the nine counties, but, arguably, not all directly relate to the bridges.
Our state legislators should immediately repeal this tax and reduce the toll to the level needed to maintain and upgrade these bridges.
Mike Forster
Palo Alto
Unreliable electricity makes gas necessary
I completely support cleaner, safer and more environmentally friendly energy. Electricity is one source that also includes solar, hydro power and wind. Thus, encouraging all-electric homes, businesses and vehicles is the right step towards meeting our current and future best interests.
However, the “elephant in the room” is PG&E (and other electricity suppliers). PG&E is woefully and too frequently unreliable. On hot days, it is often unable to meet current demands.
It is currently absurd to mandate the installation of electric-only appliances and heating/cooling systems or demand only electric vehicles on our roads.
Until and unless PG&E can guarantee consistent and sufficient supplies of electricity, gas-powered appliances need to be available. I’ll happily switch to all electric once we have plentiful and steady supplies of electricity.
Marcia Friss
Saratoga