Forced into mass transit? Not likely
Re “Downtown parking is likely to go up 50 cents an hour” (Page 1A, July 24): When the basketball monstrosity was shoved down the throats of the people of Sacramento, I wondered where all the fans were supposed to park downtown. Now I see what the agenda was. Force them to use mass transit, whether it’s available or not.
If someone from Elk Grove wants to watch a game, they must drive because mass transit would take about two hours, and the return trip would be a nightmare after dark. So, now they’ll have to park on the street and feed a meter? And now the city will gouge them until 2 a.m. This will keep patrons away from restaurants, bars and other downtown businesses as well.
Carol McElheney, Elk Grove
City should fix public transit first
I disagree that Sacramento’s parking rates are below market rates. Sacramento has no viable public transit infrastructure alternative to driving, so rates should stay low until this is fixed.
People will ride public transit when it is perceived as cheap, safe and convenient. Sacramento RT is none of these things. In its current state, can you see theatergoers and diners riding RT to an event downtown? Of course not. We should be taking buses, shuttles, bikes or we should be walking.
Other cities pay more for parking because it’s seen as a premium alternative to other forms of transit. In Sacramento, we effectively have no alternatives. Please focus on fixing RT and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
Chip Powell, Sacramento
Downtown Sac is off my list
I like the nightlife; I like to boogie. But downtown may be off my list.
If the City Council raises downtown parking rates by 50 cents per hour and extends meter operation to 2 a.m. – and it will due to the city’s need for revenue to finance the mayor’s arena – then going downtown will be off my list.
In case Sacramento hasn’t noticed, there are lots of alternatives in outlying areas. One parking consultant recently noted “people won’t mind paying extra.” Yeah, we do! Not because my evening downtown would cost a few extra dollars. It’s because we are being held responsible for the City Council-approved arena debt.
Connie Clark, Sacramento
Confused over ‘Kate’s Law’
Re “‘Kate’s Law’ is misguided” (Viewpoints, July 23): UC Davis School of Law Dean Kevin R. Johnson and Professor Rose Cuison Villazor confused the wording of a petition sponsored by Bill O’Reilly with the wording of the proposed “Kate’s Law.” The petition calls for mandatory prison time for anyone re-entering the country after being deported. Kate’s Law would impose a mandatory five-year federal prison sentence for “all convicted aggravated felons who have been deported and then re-enter the country.” The two should not be confused.
It is misleading to say the law requires imprisonment for everyone who has been deported and re-enters the country illegally. Low- and medium-skilled workers, other than their immigration status, are law-abiding people who will not be impacted by the proposed law.
We should have an honest debate on the merits Kate’s Law. Johnson and Villazor should not try to influence public opinion by misstating what the proposed law actually says.
Ed Radke, Rocklin
We need more Donald Trumps
We need more Donald Trumps running for public office. Embrace him or vilify him, I as a voter know his views, feelings and philosophy regarding people, government and the world at large. His candor is novel. He speaks his mind, not what super PACs, major donors and money sources want to hear. When is the last time a politician, party notwithstanding, spoke from the heart?
In the case of public officials, I prefer to know what I’m voting for or against. In the end, I want to elect what I expected, not what I hoped for – that’s what democracy should be about.
Rudy Browne, Meadow Vista
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.