Who gets access to luxury suite?
Re “Share the wealth on city’s suite” (Editorials, Sept. 4): The city of Sacramento will have access to a luxury suite in the new downtown arena. The current proposed guidelines need to be rewritten so that this precious perk does not exclusively become the domain of the City Council and other high-level government officials.
Most of the access to these tickets should be provided to the community who will be subsidizing the arena through the new higher parking fees. The editorial board is correct that the 70 percent share belonging to those inside City Hall is too high. The board is also correct that the transparency requirements of the guidelines are not robust enough. The taxpayers who are helping to pay for the arena deserve to know exactly who will be provided access to these tickets.
This would show some class
If Sacramento truly wants to be a world-class city, it now has a perfect chance to make a world-class move: give a portion of the luxury Golden 1 Center suites to children who live below the poverty line in our region, WEAVE, and Loaves and Fishes clientele.
Hungry children, survivors of abuse and the homeless deserve to be treated like royalty at our shiny new Golden 1 Center. I’d even pay to park in downtown Sacramento on a weeknight until 10 p.m. to support that.
Angela F. Luna,
I’ll work that city job for free
Since I have been unable to locate the “Help Wanted” ad in The Sacramento Bee for the new city position that is open, I thought I would save City Clerk Shirley Concolino and our City Council all that time and expense and offer to do the job for free.
I believe I meet the job criteria stated as I have kids and the word “No” is almost a reflexive act. And I will never miss work! Where do I sign up?
Bruce J. Pressley,
Have a city lottery for tickets
First of all, paying someone that high of a salary to monitor free tickets and behavior of recipients is utterly ridiculous. The city has thousands of employees who would do it for free just to attend a game or event.
Here is a way to get the tickets to those who deserve them the most: Have a lottery of all residents who live in the city and pick the winners. It’s fair, and no special interest will be shown. End of discussion.
Bill Moore, El Dorado Hills
A pivot into darkness
Re “Trump not a psychopath” (Letters, Sept. 4): Republicans have prevented immigration reform because they refuse to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants like those portrayed in the Forum article “Phantoms in the Fields.” Why? Because people like the letter writer gladly reap the benefits of these hard-working people while completely ignoring their contributions and holding them in contempt and disdain.
The economy? You mean an unemployment rate of 4.9 percent and Dow Jones industrial average of nearly 18,500?
Since when did ending inner-city crime and poverty become the sole responsibility of Democrats? Because they’re the only ones attempting solutions? No good deed goes unpunished.
Failure to stop ISIS? What with more boots on the ground and grieving Gold Star families? Have the last two Middle Eastern wars been such resounding successes?
Demanding that Americans turn a blind eye and channel their meanest of spirits and coldest of hearts is not a “pivot to the middle.”
Martin Edward Kaelli, Sacramento
Disarm nukes, disarm Trump
Re “Evidence shows Trump does not have a personality disorder, but...” (Forum, Aug. 28): I hear a lot of talk about what’ll happen if a President Donald Trump controls our nuclear weapons. If we worry that we can’t trust the American people to choose a president we can trust with our nuclear arsenal, then perhaps it is time to eliminate our nuclear weapons.
In the past, even competent and serious leaders in the Oval Office have come close to initiating nuclear war, (e.g. the Cuban Missile Crisis). As recently as 1995, nuclear false alarms have brought us close to nuclear war without the knowledge or input of top leaders. It is easy to imagine a scenario in which a President Trump might increase international tensions to the point that a false alarm might be more readily interpreted as a legitimate threat.
There are many other economic and strategic reasons for nuclear disarmament, but Trump may be the best reason for us to disarm now.
Fallible attorneys and death penalty
Re “Poll shows support for death penalty” (Letters, Sept. 4): In advocating for capital punishment, District Attorney Vern Pierson cites a recent state poll which he claims shows that 75 percent of the electorate supports continuing the death penalty. I was not able to find such a poll.
I did find a recent poll conducted by the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley that indicated 75 percent of the people polled supported Proposition 66 while only 55 percent opposed Proposition 62, which abolishes the death penalty.
While some might fail to remember the underlying crimes leading to a death sentence, perhaps Pierson should work on remembering that members of our profession, even when acting honestly and ethically, are not infallible.
Let me say it again – the price of executing monsters is the risk of killing the innocent. How many innocent people are you willing to execute?
Donald D. deRosier,
U.S. students should come first
Re “A plan to give college graduates relief from student loans” (Viewpoints, Sept. 4): It is discouraging to realize that some 42 million Americans are saddled with student debt totaling $1.2 trillion. I was also astonished to learn that Israel provides a free college education to its citizens.
This is consistent with the belief that the nation-state should provide their citizens with the opportunity to advance themselves, if they show the ability. But since 1970, Israel has been receiving $3 billion annually from the U.S. If our Congress would turn its allegiance to our students instead of a foreign power, our student debt problem could be largely ameliorated.
Don Knutson, Sacramento
Carbon fee a redistribution plan
Re “Cap and trade is not the answer” (Letters, Sept. 4): I think proponents of revenue-neutral carbon fees whereby “a gradually increasing fee on carbon at its source” that is rebated to U.S. citizens in equal shares are disingenuous at best.
What they are really advocating is for a massive income redistribution program that will take money from high “carbon users” (i.e. the affluent and middle-class consumers) and give it to those on the bottom of the economic ladder. This “revenue-neutral” program will hide these so called fees in the higher prices charged by the producers and, as if by magic, provide a standard entitlement check from the government to all citizens, rich or poor, old or young, urban or rural, a “benefit” that is not pegged to actual carbon use.
The means to fund the substantial bureaucracy that administers this program is also missing from this simple but dubious and misleading equation.
Scott A. Thompson, Lincoln
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.