Shareholders are responsible

Re "Report details PG&E failures" (Page A1, Aug. 31): "Fixing the company's problems will cost ratepayers billions of dollars." What? Ratepayers shouldn't be responsible for this; the owners should be responsible.

The shareholders should take responsibility for installing management who, to maximize value, tolerated poor safety policies, emergency response measures, record-keeping and inspection procedures, and who ignored extreme risks to the community. Owners/stockholders must be responsible for the tremendous damage their anti-social profit-seeking and lack of oversight has wrought on the community.

– Rebecca Jaggers, Sacramento

Leave consumers out of it

Let me see if I understand this: PG&E is cited for lax oversight, a litany of failures, not meeting industry standards, widespread deficiencies, a woefully inadequate and flawed pipe system, an ineffective emergency response plan, etc., and we, the consumers, will pay rate increases to bail them out? I say PG&E should tap into their recent high profits first, then senior company executive bonuses (whose leadership failed) before they see a nickel from consumers.

– Gary D. Taft, Lincoln

Company to blame, should pay

Since PG&E admits it failed to install the correct pipe in an adequate manner, why must the ratepayers pay for the company's dereliction? Is incompetence an allowable "cost of doing business," or should not management and stockholders bear the cost for such failure to operate their business properly?

– Walter Link, Sacramento

PUC on the hot seat

It is unbelievable that PG&E would even consider charging current consumers for the death of customers and destruction of so much property in San Bruno. If the CPUC lets them get away with this in rate hike hearings, we will have further evidence of the corruption in that body.

– Jerry Pare, Roseville

Schools chief not so generous

Re "Fresno official asks for pay cut" (Capitol & California, Aug. 29): This article is a school district PR release. Let's examine the facts.

Larry Powell retires, receiving a six-figure pension, so he is not giving up much at all. His salary has just been shifted from the district to the retirement fund.

He is allowed to apply the "extra" money from his salary to support his pet projects, but only for three years.

What happens to those pet projects after the three years, and who funds them then?

– Albert F. Kammerer, Sacramento

Finally, some sanity on health

Re "Controlling costs must be paramount in health care reform" (Viewpoints, Aug. 29): How refreshing it is to read that the Bay Area Council, a respected business organization, is committed to helping make the Affordable Care Act work. Doesn't this constructive approach make a whole lot more sense than the calls for repeal by GOP presidential candidates and congressional leaders?

Let's give this landmark legislation a chance to take effect. That way we'll find out what works and what needs to be changed. Calls for repeal are both counterproductive and irresponsible.

– Robert Irelan, Rancho Murieta

Abolish life without parole

Re "Death penalty foes seek to put push for abolition on ballot" (Capitol & California, Aug. 30): Kent Scheidegger's response to death penalty abolitionists was spot on. The fact that the death penalty costs more than life without parole is, in a word, ludicrous. Our justice system and the appeal process must be reformed so that the death penalty is administered more expediently while still providing for a fair trial and one level of appeal to ensure due process and the absence of reasonable doubt.

Life without parole is also very expensive at $50,000 a year for thousands of lifers who may be incarcerated for decades. That money could be much better spent on preschool and public education to help stem the tide of future murderers.

What we should abolish is life without parole, a sentence that is an injustice to victims, survivors and taxpayers.

– Paul Warrick, West Sacramento

Hometown is slighted

Re "San Jose artisan revels in ancient art of wood turning" (Capitol & California, Aug. 27): I was astounded that you would choose to include an article about a wood turner who is based in San Jose. There are numerous wood turners locally (including myself) who attempt to "turn" a profit and also could use the publicity.

I have been a subscriber to The Bee since 1988 and have witnessed some breaches of local etiquette in the past, but never has it been as personally insulting as this.

With the Sacramento job market being as bad as it is, I would think that you might want to promote the local population rather than a person who has no connection to the Capitol area.

– Gene Kelly, Sacramento

Payday loans good for some

Re "Don't sell the store to payday industry" (Editorials, Aug. 21): A payday loan is not right for every customer every time. But it's a legitimate, short-term credit option for consumers with checking accounts and regular incomes. The Bee ignores the real choices consumers face and the fact payday loans are often the least expensive choice.

A consumer needing $150 to avoid a bounced check, a credit card late charge plus interest, or utility disconnection faces fees of $35 or far more. Instead, he could use a payday loan for a flat fee of $26.48 – with no interest and no credit rating damage. Which is the better choice?

Under state law, payday loans have only one-time, fixed fees; there's no compounding interest, and lenders cannot give a new loan to pay off an existing one.

Most payday loan customers, like users of other credit, act responsibly.

– Tom Leonard, Clovis, executive director, California Financial Service Providers Association

An unhappy trip down river

On Sunday I floated down the American River from Sunrise to Watt Avenue. I was shocked and appalled to see such blatant disregard for our river by other rafters.

I collected more than 50 bottles and cans and a large amount of litter during my six-hour drift. The fact that I did not see a single park ranger or sheriff's deputy was even more atrocious.

Who is in charge of keeping these people safe and our river clean? Budget cuts are no excuse: Fines for littering should be enough to keep a cop out there. And where are the rafting rental companies during this mess? Probably rolling in dough.

Shame on the rental companies, the park rangers and sheriff, and shame on all of us for letting it get this bad.

– Brandon Lane, Sacramento

And a miffed football fan

Football season is here again. Why does The Bee give preferential treatment to the San Francisco 49ers over the Oakland Raiders?

When I read the daily sports section, I always see one of three things. The 49ers have an article on the front page and the Raiders have one down below it, or the 49ers have a story on the front page and the Raiders have one deep within the Sports section, or the 49ers have an article and the Raiders have none. You are not the San Francisco Bee, so how about equal coverage for both our teams.

– Mike Fredericks, Folsom

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

WRITE US A LETTER

Include: Name, mailing address and phone number.

Length: 150 words or less.

BEST WAY TO SUBMIT

Online form: www.sacbee.com/sendletter

E-mail: letters@sacbee.com Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852

• Read more articles by