Letters to the Editor

Letters: Don’t fall for this trick that would gut criminal justice reform

Just a scare tactic

Re “Keep violent sex offenders locked up” (sacbee.com, Feb. 22): Don’t be fooled by Assemblymember Jim Cooper’s latest ploy to scare Californians into supporting his cynical and deeply flawed ballot initiative, which would gut key provisions of Proposition 57 and other criminal justice reforms.

Contrary to what Cooper falsely asserts, “20,000 inmates now serving time for violent sex offenses” will not be released and “back on the street” because of a tentative lower court ruling. In fact, Proposition 57 explicitly protects the public and bars such releases. If the judge follows through with his preliminary decision, I will promptly appeal – and the law will stand as intended by the voters.

Gov. Jerry Brown

Fighting nutria

Re “Invasive swamp rodent has California scrambling to come up with a battle plan” (sacbee.com, Feb. 22): The nutria, an invasive rat the size of a beaver that can breed 30 or more offspring a year, is threatening our river levees and wetlands, while the state says it is “scurrying” to solve the problem – at least in its usual way. For the last several months, there’s been a “response team” trying to determine what to should do, while excluding the group with the most expertise because that group is “fiercely despised by environmental and animal-welfare groups.” Again, California flushes its people’s welfare down the environmentalists’ waterless toilet of political correctness.

Bill Jurkovich,

Citrus Heights

NRA blood money

Re “FedEx bucks corporate trend, sticks with NRA” (sacbee.com, Feb. 27): It is encouraging to see the many companies divest their relationship with the NRA. Yet, FedEx refuses to do so, thereby supporting the gun lobby’s crusade to ensure everyone in the country has an assault weapon so that more children can be murdered in classrooms. I know from experience that my office alone receives dozens of FedEx packages each day. Please do your part, send a letter or email to your state representatives to demand a decree to not allow state agencies to send or receive shipments from FedEx, until the company divests itself from its close relationship with the NRA.

Kevin Depies, Elk Grove

More NRA profits

Re “Trump and Sacramento’s sheriff are wrong about giving guns to teachers. Here’s why” (Marcos Breton, Feb. 23): Recently, I read that gun sales for first time buyers has ben flat for several years. Most guns are sold to existing gun owners, especially after mass killings. The NRA has morphed into a lobbying entity for the gun manufacturers. Arming teachers would open up a huge untapped market for gun makers. School districts across the country would provide a windfall of profits. It seems the only people supportive of this plan is the NRA, Republicans on the NRA payroll and Trump. Is it really about school safety?

Gregory Aaron,


Billy Graham

A man who preached and lived a Christian life” (Editorials, Feb. 21): Dear editor, Sometime in the fifties Billy Graham came to Sacramento and had a crusade at the grandstand at the old State fair grounds on Stockton Blvd.I was very young and all I remember was him speaking of a "purple people eater". My mom thought it as terrific that he included something in his message that was current to the time. Over the years when-ever I saw or heard Billy Graham I think of that . Thank-you, Billy Graham .

Mitchell Rhoades,


Value of unions

Re “Don’t gut public sector unions, Supreme Court” (Editorials, Feb. 26): Why would there be a financial blow to unions if the Supreme Court ruling allows employees to drop out? If unions are such a terrific benefit, a vast majority will continue with their memberships and dues. On the other hand, if the ruling would in fact hurt unions, then a large percentage of government employees obviously don’t want to be members. It would be a true reflection of what employees want, not the loss of political campaign money that the Democratic politicians want.

John Hightower,


Power to persuade

Your editorial presumes that public employees will not join or financially support unions unless they are required to do so. But surely those who believe unions serve their interests and deserve their support will join and contribute voluntarily. If unions can appeal broadly to enough employees, they should not have to coerce contributions from those who disagree with their agenda. If they can't do this, they don't deserve to prevail.

Barry Mackintosh, Lincoln

Pensions, a minus

Re “A plus for pensions” (Letters to the Editor, Feb. 22): Hank H. Kim says that California’s pensions are revenue generators, because that money is put back into our local economies. It’s not working. California is in debt and many cities are filing for bankruptcy. California retirees leave the state because it’s cheaper in other states. That means that they are spending California’s tax dollars in other states. We can’t afford our public unions any more. We need to hold them accountable for how they spend our tax dollars. If the whole state goes bankrupt, California will not be able to fund pensions.

Joe Phelps, Citrus Heights

Help for homeless

Re “Tiny homes for Sacramento homeless could get $200M in subsidies and vacant city land” (sacbee.com, Feb. 22): The root cause of homelessness can be traced back to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act when the mentally ill were released from institutions without a safety net. Decades later, Sacramento is going to right that wrong by providing housing for 3,600 homeless people. California is now not just a sanctuary for immigrants, but we now have put out the welcome mat to homeless people. Make it to California and you will be taken care of. Change in a chronically homeless population is wishful thinking.

Phil LaZier, Sacramento