Letters: Fiscal cliff | Preservation is the point | Neutral language | Truth-teller | Guilty of honor

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

BART’s fiscal cliff due to
myriad, solvable issues

Re: “BART ‘fiscal cliff’ reflects board’s denial of reality” (Page A12, May 28).

BART’s cliff is even worse than we know.

BART has huge ambitions including building a second transbay tunnel. They increase the system for the riders who will never come back.

Daniel Borenstein correctly identified much of BART’s mismanagement.

But why don’t people want to ride? Many no longer need to, due to the ability to work from home. Others simply can’t afford it. I always wondered how airport workers could afford the steep cost to commute to their jobs. The price is too high, relative to comparable systems, such as the Paris Metro or the Tokyo Subway, both of which are cleaner, more reliable and safer. And then there’s the crime issue. Creeps and crooks are rife in the system.

We need to downsize the system and stop investing in pretty stations. Get the garbage off the trains, so we feel safe. Police should be riding them every day.

Denise Kalm
Walnut Creek

Preservation the point
of planned open space

Walnut Creek is proposing changes to Lime Ridge Open Space that do not align with the intent and purpose of our open spaces, which is preservation. Any development of flow trails and conversion of single-track trails to “bike-approved” multi-use status must never happen. These changes do not align with the Lime Ridge master plan nor with city municipal codes.

Changes to the policies/rules of the open space should require public discussions and meetings and City Council oversite. There must be transparent processes that are open to public review for any proposed changes.

Trail designation changes require a full CEQA process, as any change of use would significantly impact the environment.

The taxpayers of Walnut Creek purchased the open spaces to be protected in perpetuity. The habitats and inhabitants need our continued vigilance. The priority for our open spaces is protection and preservation, not recreation. Open spaces are preserves, not parks.

Valerie Gardner
Walnut Creek

Cool political heat
with neutral language

When I read an article that talks about conservative Republicans, I notice that writers invariably use the term “hard-right” or “right-wingers” to identify conservative Republicans. In the same article, they will call certain Democrats “progressive,” but never “left-wingers” or “hard-leftists.” It certainly sounds much nicer just to say progressive.

It would help the political climate and dialogue to refrain from using terms that may have a negative implication. You might not agree with a conservative Republican, but they are Republicans nevertheless, just different than moderate Republicans. Similarly, you have progressive Democrats and moderate Democrats. So, can writers just say conservative and progressive and stay neutral? It doesn’t seem like it.

Douglas Abbott
Union City

How would we treat
truth-telling president?

Re: “The president America needs (not Trump, Biden)” (Page A7, June 2).

Yes, David Mills, we deserve a president, “who’ll try to tell the truth, someone willing to lose rather than lie? Someone we can trust.” Let’s challenge Artificial Intelligence (AI) to unveil this reluctant hero.

Nelson Mandela believed “There is a constant struggle between good and evil in the world.” America needs a born servant leader. We may find our hero hiding among the fraction of a percent who become Eagle Scouts, and altar servers. Your neighbor who joined the military to protect beloved freedom. The courageous humanitarian who becomes a police officer who protects the constitutional rights of all. A sage, who feels one’s highest calling is governing the family table.

Bad people succeed when good people do nothing. Yes, David Mills, our data-driven Nostradamus (AI) will predict your candidate. How will we treat our reluctant hero?

Mark R. Clifford
Moraga

Yellowstone visitor
guilty of being honorable

Re: “Man pleads guilty to moving bison calf in Yellowstone” (Page A2, June 3).

I support the need for the National Park Service to prohibit contact with bison in Yellowstone National Park. However, it pained me to read about $1,000 in fines and payments imposed on a gentleman whose violation occurred while saving a newborn bison calf from drowning. In today’s world, many deliberate criminals face fewer consequences.

Clifford Walters could not have been more honorable. Not only did he attempt to save the calf, but also when he learned park officials were looking for him, he promptly went to a ranger station to turn himself in. Moreover, he did not even complain about the fine, but pronounced it fair, stating, “I would have paid that much money to safe the calf’s life.”

What to do? After Google-locating Walters’ address, I am sending him a note and modestly reimbursing part of his payment. A good man should know his laudable integrity is recognized.

Eliot Hudson
Lafayette