How about the AT&T Half Dome?

Re "State parks are economic engine" (Editorial, Sept. 2): I may have the solution to the state park closure problem. In fact, I think I may have the answer to our whole budget shortfall. Corporate sponsorship! It works for ballparks – why not landmarks?

I envision the AT&T Half Dome, Microsoft Lake Tahoe and the Apple General Sherman Tree. That would just be the beginning. We could have our schools sponsored: the Intel University of California. Cities: Trans America San Francisco.

No doubt the concept would quickly spread throughout the country: the Sears Lake Michigan. Even states would jump on the bandwagon with Goodyear Ohio and Citigroup New York.

As the concept went worldwide, we would have the Saab Republic (formerly Sweden) and General Electric Antarctica.

Please join me in supporting this grass-roots movement at town hall meetings wherever they occur.

– Rob Purdie, Cameron Park

Don't tap us for water project

Re "State parks are economic engine" (Editorial, Sept. 2): What state government spends taxpayer dollars on is about making choices and setting priorities.

Our legislative leaders recently created a conference committee on water where, among other things, a $5 billion to $11 billion general obligation bond is under active consideration to pay for construction of new water storage projects (dams). The governor has already threatened to veto any water reform package if it doesn't include such a bond.

If the Legislature goes along and the voters approve even a $5 billion water bond measure, it will annually cost California $325 million over 30 years to service the debt.

Closing state parks to save $14 million while our political leaders are seriously considering taking on hundreds of millions of dollars in new debt is insanity. We should not be asked to annually pay $10 more to register our cars to avoid park closures if political leaders think state taxpayers should subsidize construction of new dam projects that many believe are unneeded.

Let the beneficiaries pay for that water. That's how the State Water Project got built.

– Jeff Shellito, Sacramento

Professor duties: UC vs. CSU

Re "Why can profs cancel classes?" (Letters, Sept. 1): Diane Custer asks why professors at California State University, Sacramento, are allowed to take furloughs on their teaching days while University of California, Davis, professors are not.

I am not a spokesperson for either campus, but I think the reason is that full-time UC professors have, on average, a lighter teaching load than full-time CSU professors. A huge part of a UC professor's duties involves the performance of research, supervising graduate and undergraduate researchers, and other scholarly/administrative activities.

CSU professors carry much heavier teaching loads than most UC professors, and they may teach classes every day of the week. They perform other academic duties as well, but the breakdown of their assignment is weighted toward teaching. So it makes sense that typical full-time professors at Davis could be expected to take all their furloughs on days they are not teaching while typical full-time Sac State professors cannot.

– Erica Wagner, Sacramento

Plenty of shame to go around

Re "Tent city neighbor awaits help" (Our Region, Sept. 2): It's a shame the fight against homelessness has ended up being fought at our neighbors' expense. Shame on the city of Sacramento for its cowardly inaction. Shame on the property-owning attorney for this disrespectful action against another. Shame on homeless residents for turning their frustration and anger toward others. Shame on our community for not coming up with a better plan and leaving Pedro Hernandez to endure this hardship and disrespect.

– Michael Tomlin, Carmichael

Will sees folly, Obama doesn't

Re "Ramping up in Afghanistan? Instead, it's time U.S. got out" (Viewpoints, Sept. 1): As a Democrat, I was delighted with George Will's column advocating U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, especially since he is one of the very few intelligent conservative writers. But I am disappointed with President Barack Obama's reluctance to end this travesty; in fact, he is advocating pouring many more troops into this hellhole, following the hawkish generals who formulated the Bush-Cheney policies. As Will points out, we could be there for a decade or more.