Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Vote to keep Maher onPleasanton school board
When Amador Valley had a vacancy in our administration team (hopefully that won’t happen again, soon), Steve Maher stepped in to help.
This has been a consistent pattern. At a school board meeting last year, students from our Girls Who Code club were presenting information about an event that needed funding. Steve offered to donate money for the cause. The check was delivered that week. When Amador Valley had parking lot issues last year, Steve was there each morning helping smooth the traffic flow. I have gotten to know him more closely over the years. The quality that never wavered in him is his desire to do whatever is needed to help our children succeed. He is first to offer time. He doesn’t wait to see which way the wind is blowing. He acts selflessly and decisively.
I couldn’t support a school board candidate more than I support Steve.
Richard HansonPleasanton
Vote for Dunbarfor BART District 5
District 5 needs a new BART board director, but we disagree with the Times’ choice. Steven Dunbar, a systems engineer in transit vehicle (bus) manufacturing with experience in energy and transportation policy, is the superior candidate.
Having used public transportation himself for years, Dunbar is well aware of commuters’ needs and the issues BART and other regional transportation providers face. This young man has the judgment and financial acumen to help BART weather the current storm and the vision and creativity needed to lead BART into the future.
Cathy MartinDublin
Measure Z will freeAlameda of restriction
Still not convinced that we need to pass Measure Z in Alameda? Please read the actual proposed law. All it does is remove three short paragraphs of restrictions and insert two sentences explaining that the previous text has been repealed. Nothing more — no hidden side effects.
What Measure Z really does: it unties our hands and enables the city leaders that you elect to manage housing intelligently, not based on a size restriction put into place decades ago. I for one am looking forward to the new housing that will be built in Alameda to be more like the transit/walking-friendly Park Street area and less like Bayport. We need our new housing to encourage fewer automotive trips, which you can get with smart development, instead of practically requiring car ownership, as is the case with everything built since the restriction came about in 1973.
Dan WoodAlameda
Development a netgood despite traffic
Too often, I see opposition to any new development on the basis that new residents will simply add traffic and make our communities worse. While I hate traffic as much as anyone, this is a misguided view. More neighbors offer an incredible amount to our community, including customers for our local businesses, property taxes to fund our schools and services, and of course members to join our sports clubs and churches.
If we keep fighting new developments to bring new neighbors to our cities, we risk freezing them in amber and depriving them of the ability to adapt to the changing times.
We are fortunate many people want to come and live in the East Bay and should remember that these new people are more than just robots in their cars. Let us start saying “Yes” more often, and look forward to the many benefits that new neighbors will bring.
Arvind RameshWalnut Creek
Courts already packedbut by Republicans
In regards to the disingenuous article by Marc Thiessen (“Will Joe Biden have courage to reject push to pack court?” Oct. 15) and the response of October 18 (“GOP talk of packing court show hypocrisy“) about packing the Supreme Court, both are missing the real and more serious issue, which is the packing of the lower federal district courts and the federal courts of appeal.
Because the Republicans blocked or refused to move on many President Obama nominees since 2011, President Trump has been given an abnormally large number of vacancies to fill and thus has already been able to pack the courts. This is critical as the normal pool of justices considered for the Supreme Court comes from these justices from the courts of appeal and many of the district court decisions are upheld by these same appeals courts.
The courts have already been packed but by the Republicans.
Roger WoodFremont
