Letters to the Editor

Letters: Enough about tent cities for homeless

Gary Oaks rests on his bed in his tarp tent at the Nickelsville Tiny House Camp in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle. Sacramento officials toured the city-sanctioned homeless camp last year while considering whether to open one here.
Gary Oaks rests on his bed in his tarp tent at the Nickelsville Tiny House Camp in the Ballard neighborhood of Seattle. Sacramento officials toured the city-sanctioned homeless camp last year while considering whether to open one here. lsterling@sacbee.com

Homeless tent city isn’t a solution

Re “Seeing a crisis, Warren advocates for tent city” (Page 1B, Jan. 31): A few days ago, The Bee reported that more than 2,600 were homeless in Sacramento County, living on the streets and in shelters. Temporary housing and tents are short-term solutions. This problem will only continue to grow. In the 1930s and 1940s, millions of jobs were created for the unemployed and unskilled workers. Projects such as erecting public buildings, schools, roads and bridges were accomplished. This employment gave people a sense of self-respect and was preferred over public assistance or living in a tent.

Ben Wright, Sacramento

Differing versions of 2nd Amendment

Re “High court nominee professes agreement with Scalia’s views” (Page 1A, Feb. 1): The Bee reports that the conservative views of President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, include support for the Second Amendment. But which version does he support? The original one, beginning with the phrase, “A well regulated militia”? Or the NRA rewrite, which deletes that phrase?

Prior to the 2008 Heller decision, written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, there was no constitutional right for anyone to own a gun in this country outside of service in a well regulated militia. If confirmed, Gorsuch’s past decisions indicate that he will support Scalia’s view.

Bill Durston, Gold River

What happened to ‘boys will be boys’?

Re “Boy Scouts will allow transgender children in boys only programs,” (Page 8A, Jan. 31): “Boys will be boys” is an old saying, but now it is being turned on its head. It’s becoming a question that we seem unable to answer. As a society we are coming to accept our perception of who we are and not our DNA. Adults should be leading youths on this issue. But the adults are as confused as the boys.

We must look below the surface to see that our gender is more than what color or what toys we like. At a more basic level, what male child truly knows what it’s like to be female and vice versa? The Boy Scouts should know the long-term effects of gender perception.

Richard L. Connors, Sacramento

Police force must be reasonable

Re “Just because a police shooting is legal doesn’t mean its right” (Editorials, Feb. 1): The Bee asserts the Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office, in failing to charge Sacramento Police Department officers for their justified use of force, “had little choice but to follow deeply flawed federal law.” This is a ludicrous assertion given that the only “federal law” the officers were following was the Fourth Amendment.

It is important for agencies to train their officers. But the reality is, any use of force will not be pretty. The officers in this instance used force to protect the greater community from harm. It would be educational for the editorial board, protesters and politicians to put on a uniform and take a beat for the day, knowing that their split-second decisions in tense, uncertain circumstances will be judged unfairly according to the idealized and unrealistic expectations of critics on the sideline.

Jeff Carlisle, Lincoln

Mixed messages on Joseph Mann case

This is another indecipherable and inconclusive piece on the Mann shooting. There is no mention of the two police officers that had to make the ultimate decision of using deadly force. They will have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Also in cases like this, drug use and criminal history seem to be used as some kind of justification for a large financial settlement to the family. The grown-ups amongst us realize actions have consequences.

Andrew Mattson, Roseville

Will history repeat itself?

Re “California leaders push back against Trump, pledge to protect immigrant ‘sanctuaries’  (Page 1A, Jan. 26): Why are so many elected representatives, from the local on up to the federal level, standing against the rule of federal law? I am reminded of Lester Maddox, the former governor of Georgia, and George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama. These Democrats, both with almost nonexistent Republican opposition, fought against federal law. They had loud and vocal supporters, but did not prevail.

I find the situation in California mirrors, in principle, the actions taken by these governors. We should not be surprised when there are consequences and when federal law prevails over state law in this matter.

Dean Dal Ben, Sacramento


Find them at:



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.