It’s about money, not higher ed
Re “English university could help solve higher ed needs” (Editorials, March 2): It makes no sense to put two universities, the proposed University of Warwick campus and a CSU satellite campus so close to each other in Placer County.
The land for the Warwick campus was donated by developer Angelo K. Tsakopoulos, and “putting the homes closer to the city also boosts land owned by the Tsakopoulos family to the south.”
This is not about higher education; this is about making more money for Tsakopoulos. If the county were serious about putting a university there, it would require the university to be established before issuing building permits for new homes. It makes far more sense for the CSU satellite campus to build closer to existing homes and infrastructure.
A more likely scenario is that the university is a red herring for developers to continue sprawl development. My money is betting we will never see Warwick University, we will see more sprawl in Placer County and the Tsakopoulos family will be all the richer.
Laura Valoppi, Sacramento
Good news and bad news
I could not agree more that additional university facilities, whether for Warwick or CSU Sacramento, are exciting and could go a long way to loosening up what many consider a very restricted educational environment in Placer County. It is certainly a great opportunity.
However, Roseville has approached the city of Lincoln in a bid to get some of Lincoln’s sources of potable water for Roseville’s new construction needs, including new schools. Apparently Roseville is short. Nobody has worked out how to get Lincoln’s water to Roseville. There are no water distribution pipes in place to cross Highway 65, which divides both cities.
Certainly The Bee needs to ask this very expensive critical question during this drought?
Reginald Bronner, Lincoln
Gax tax hike is punitive
Re “Slam the brakes on gas tax hike” (Viewpoints, Feb. 27): David Spady is right on. We’re not Rhode Island, where driving across the entire state is shorter than the commute for millions of California workers. There is a relentless gouging of the poor and middle class through “green” but punitive fees and taxes. We are under an economic terrorist threat by liberal elites and the Legislature.
In 20 or 30 years, electric cars will all but replace the internal combustion engine. Petroleum will still have its uses in other industries. The planet changed from the ice age long before carbon-based fuels were discovered. Climate change is part of life; you just adapt, but not by taxing us into non-use.
Paul Reid, Folsom
Part-timers get no respect
Re “Lecturers benefit students” (Letters, Feb. 27): Kudos to Jan Shaw for really telling it like it is. Adjunct professors or part-time lecturers aren’t treated with a lot of respect or admiration by most administrators.
I worked hard as a lecturer and used my own money for office supplies and copies. I was mortified one day when a student called the department chairman to see if I would be there next semester and he said, “Well, they come and go.” What an insult. No benefits, no guarantee that you’ll have a job from semester to semester; try paying your bills with that meager income.
Joseph Morreale, Paradise
Need option for peaceful death
Re “Assisted suicide benefits very few, endangers more” (Viewpoints, Feb. 26): Aid in dying is indeed utilized by few, but allays fear for many more, while endangering no one. Yes, we are at a crossroads and must indeed fight for better end-of-life care, but slaying this dragon is not an imminent likelihood. We have had a long time to get it right but have fallen short.
The Oregon experience of 17 years has shown us that aid-in-dying laws increase use of traditional palliative measures while affording patients the knowledge that if traditional measures fail, a peaceful death remains an option. And the vulnerable are never placed at risk. As we strive to provide better care, freedom of choice must remain paramount.
David C. Martin, Sacramento
System badly misdiagnosed
Laura Petrillo notes that the majority just want a more carefully managed death. She seems to be arguing that many patients don’t know their best interests and that assisted suicide will be abused.
But she badly misdiagnoses the system when she believes that poor end-of-life care can just be improved. Certainly it can, but she fails to note that assisted suicide is working fine in those states that have allowed it. And most importantly of all, she fails to recognize the real issue. It should not be the state’s or a physician’s power to make that final decision for us if we are of sound mind. It is our fundamental liberty and when she advocates against it, she takes away our right to be fully human and leaves us powerless in our final act on earth.
Stephen Lightner, Camino
Is it really a dignified death?
Re “Right to die is basic” (Letters, Feb. 17): I’m just wondering why the enlightened state of California is seriously considering allowing people to take an overdose of barbiturates to end their life, and it’s called compassionate when we have 500-plus murderers languishing on San Quentin’s death row because death by an overdose of barbiturates is supposedly cruel and unusual.
Is it just me?
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.