Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Animals underserved
by beleaguered shelter
Re: “Critics demand more of center” (Page A1, May 11).
Sadly, it appears that the mayor’s request for a city audit of the animal shelter and the 39 recommendations it yielded have done nothing but allow the city and its shelter management team to continue to “lower the bar” of services to the community.
At a progress report in front of the City Council, Public Works Director Matt Loesch indicated that low-cost public spay-neuter would begin in June, but with only five appointments per week. Meanwhile, trap, neuter and return services were an afterthought, and any discussion of implementing this much-needed service was punted to December.
For an animal shelter that turns away residents with healthy strays at intake, didn’t have more than eight or nine adult cats available for adoption in April, and has frequently seen cats (and a dog named Rufus) die from basic spay-neuter surgery, it’s hard to imagine what SJACS offers residents for $17 million a year.
Michael Wagner
Morgan Hill
Qatar’s bribe is
a matter of scale
Years ago, I was present at a consulting company’s presentation at corporate headquarters in Pennsylvania. At the end of the presentation, they handed out free T-shirts and baseball caps emblazoned with their company logo. A corporate officer stood up to remind us that we really shouldn’t accept gifts from consultants.
Many people took T-shirts anyway, including me. I wore it while mowing my lawn rather than my good T-shirts. A cheap T-shirt wasn’t going to make me recommend this company.
Now, if they gave me a $400 million jet, that would have been a problem.
Kip Bryant
San Jose
The correct question is
‘Can we pay for it?’
Re: “Trump is cutting Alzheimer’s research. Why?” (Page A7, May 7).
On the Opinion page, the headline asks, “Trump is cutting Alzheimer’s research. Why?”
Because we can’t afford it. Because we are in debt to an amount so huge that it is an imaginary number. Because the crash must come when we live beyond our means, making 1929 look like a hiccup. And because we cannot simply ask, of our own money or the government’s, “Do we want this?” but “Can we pay for it?”
Legislators and elected officials are, in principle, charged with the task of protecting taxpayers’ money. The ones who try to do it cannot win an election. So our monstrous debt continues to grow and threaten us all.
People who cannot ask “How much does this cost? Can we afford it?” are (alas) not fit to govern themselves.
Elizabeth Erickson
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara should hike
rates of biggest users
The Mercury News and CalMatters recently highlighted the growing impact of data centers in Santa Clara.
While the city’s Silicon Valley Power (SVP) has long provided reliable, low-cost energy to residents, current rate structures favor large consumers like data centers, offering them rates as low as $0.09/kWh — half of what residents pay. This imbalance raises concerns about fairness and sustainability. As residential customers see steady rate increases, data centers receive lower rates and discounts for increased usage.
Santa Clara should follow the example of Wenatchee, Wash., by requiring large consumers to pay more and have more frequent increases. Utilities exist to serve residents first, not private corporations. With data centers consuming 90% of SVP’s energy, future growth mustn’t burden residents or compromise renewable energy goals.
SVP commercial rates hould be increased immediately. SVP must adopt fair pricing that prioritizes long-term community needs and environmental responsibility.
George Schnurle
Santa Clara
Cupertino council owes
speakers an apology
At the May 6 Cupertino City Council meeting, public comment was heard regarding a proposed moratorium that would prevent the conversion of residential units to student housing within one-half mile of De Anza College.
Most commentators were Foothill-De Anza Community College District students in favor of housing. Later that evening, Councilman Ray Wang asked that the students recognize that they are “pawns of the (district) administration.” This was a gross lie and a great disrespect to the students, without whom there would have been zero movement on housing since 2020. Students manned the phones and went door-to-door in favor of Measure G, approved by district voters in 2020. When the bond was won, students attended board meetings and organized on the ground with faculty and staff to get district administrators to spend the funds in a timely, effective manner that reflects the bond language.
Wang’s callous comment shows how little he knows or cares to know our students. He should apologize.
Daniel Solomon
Redwood City
Government’s cuts
threaten least wealthy
Re: “Layoffs coming to offices of education” (Page B1, May 14).
The Santa Clara County Office of Education is not happy with cuts to Head Start, which is a program for preschoolers from low-income families. Also, the federal government wants to cut funds for special education.
Why is the federal government reducing programs for the most needy? Even Section 8, which helps tenants pay part of their rent, is being considered for cuts. Medicaid might get cut as well.
What people do not understand is that hospital costs for medical treatment for the uninsured put the burden on those with medical coverage. Surely, enough federal jobs have been cut to make up funds without putting low-income people at risk.
Celeste McGettigan
San Jose