There certainly is "Lots more to Down syndrome decisions" (Letter, Sept. 13), but it's not financial. Most parents' fears begin with a diagnosis presented as a "tragedy." These are intensified through inaccurate and outdated information – if any is provided at all.

However, those of us with loved ones with Down syndrome will agree it's not a tragedy. Having a child is always a gamble: Some may have health issues, others learning delays. No family is perfect.

People with Down syndrome go to school, work, have meaningful relationships, make decisions about their lives and live independently. They become dedicated employees and loyal friends.

Research shows parents and siblings of people with Down syndrome report rich rewards, not a heavy burden. People with Down syndrome are much more like the rest of us than different.

There's something terribly wrong with a society that purportedly values diversity yet places a distinct lack of value on people who aren't "perfect." I don't know one perfect person and it's hard to understand this willing acceptance of terminating pregnancies based on inaccurate information about potential "imperfections." Yet it exists 90 percent of the time with Down syndrome.

– Elaine Linn, Sacramento

executive director, Down Syndrome Information Alliance

Mayor, council wrong on public safety

Let's get this straight: Sacramento is the capital of the seventh-largest economy in the world, and Mayor Fargo and her allies on the City Council have forced cuts in public safety that resulted in half of the number of police patrols on our streets and the closing of fire stations?

Protecting us from fire and crime should be the top priority of our city officials – above a $650,000 tree census, 4 percent pay hikes for the mayor and the council, and top-of-the-line cat cages. Sacramento already spends 20 percent less than other California cities of its size on public safety. No wonder our crime rate is soaring. No wonder The Bee reported that we lost homes and property last week because of slowed response time from the Fire Department caused by station "brownouts."

The Bee has it backward: We shouldn't be facing a choice that pits cuts in the Police Department vs. cuts in Fire Department ("Public safety lies in the balance"; Editorial, Sept. 13). We shouldn't be scaling back on either. It's time we elect a mayor and City Council that have their priorities straight and recognizes that their first obligation is to protect its citizens.

– Kim Etcheberry DeLuca, Sacramento

Don't trim urban fire protection

Sacramento City Councilwoman Bonnie Pannell has suggested a better way for fire departments to save money – to experiment with three-person crews.

This has already been done and proven ineffective and dangerous. It's a bad idea and a cowardly way to save money. The councilwoman compares fire crews in Sacramento city to Sacramento Metropolitan and the state of California on staffing.

She is comparing the suburbs to the city, and you really can't. In Sacramento as well as San Francisco, homes, businesses and offices are in close proximity and the rescue effort is increased. Fires have changed in the last 25 years and burn hotter because the components of the American home have changed; we now have petroleum-based products (computers, laptops, furniture, etc.) that require firefighters to make a more aggressive attack requiring larger hose lines to prevent the fire from expanding.

The citizens of San Francisco were the first in the nation to oppose firehouse closures. They tried the brownout philosophy there and it did not work. Fires increased, firefighters were injured, insurance rates went up and loss of life due to fires spiked.

Two years ago, the citizens voted overwhelmingly to support a proposition that prevented the city and county of San Francisco from closing firehouses.

– John F. Hanley

president, San Francisco Fire Fighters Union Local 798

Pack truants off to juvenile hall