Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for Nov. 25, 2023

Read up before buying an e-bike for your child

As an avid cyclist and parent/grandparent, I’m very concerned about throttle electric-assist bicycles (basically mopeds and motorcycles) that children are riding on Marin streets. Here is some unsolicited advice for parents considering an e-bike for their child as a holiday present:

• The safest choice for children is a regular, nonelectric bicycle. It’s a great way for your child to exercise and enjoy some freedom.

• If you are considering an e-bike (because you live up a steep hill, for example), the safest is a Class 1 electric pedal-assist bicycle — without a throttle. Note that its 20-mph limit will be too fast for some children, depending on their maturity, size and experience.

• Class 2 e-bikes — the ones with a throttle, no pedaling required — might look cool but are not safe for children. By law, they aren’t supposed to go faster than 20 mph. However, I suspect most kids know how to shift into “unlimited” or “off-road” mode, which can go 35 mph or faster, depending on the brand.

If your child’s life and limbs aren’t reason enough, there’s also a risk that the police will realize that models with top speeds above 20 mph are not legal Class 2 e-bikes. I hope they start ticketing kids without licenses and impound the vehicles.

So parents: Please think twice before buying a throttle machine for your children. Find out how fast they will go, how much they weigh and how often they have been involved in serious accidents.

— Robert Mittelstaedt, Kentfield

Interstate 580 through San Rafael only two lanes

I have been reading the constant back and forth in the IJ Opinion section regarding the bike lane across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. It is clear that many believe removing the bike and pedestrian lane from the westbound deck on Interstate 580 will reduce the number of traffic jams.

However, I think the stretch of 580 through San Rafael from the bridge to Highway 101 will quickly become a big problem. The two-mile-long freeway is only two lanes in each direction.

Converting the bike lane will only move the inevitable congestion caused by merging down to two lanes in the westbound direction from the bridge entrance to the bridge exit.

— Bill Lescohier, Fairfax

Nonprofit committed to support for older adults

On Nov. 8, the Marin IJ republished an article from the New York Times with the headline, “Retired couples face touchy decisions over where to live.” I read it with interest.

As executive director of the nonprofit organization Marin Villages, which provides support for older adults, it seems to me that the author took on two complex questions. How do couples reach agreement on, well, anything? And how can we remain independent as we age in wherever the place is we call home?

I don’t have a simple answer for the first one. Let’s just say it takes work. As for staying independent as we age, I have some suggestions.

Live where you are comfortable, supported and safe. That support and security may come from family, friends, hired in-home help or skilled nursing. But it may also come from innovative community-based organizations like Marin Villages that offer a network of peers and volunteers to help with the necessities of day-to-day living. Some examples include rides to doctor appointments, picking up groceries or prescriptions, simple handyman fixes in the home and new friendships and activities to combat loneliness and isolation.

For many, health realities dictate when to move into an assisted-living (or skilled nursing) facility or a senior community offering independent living. As the article suggests, downsizing to a single-story home solves many issues of aging. But for many, both are out of reach financially, or not desirable yet.

Many of us simply want to stay right where we are for as a long as we can. Staying put in the home you have known, in your own familiar neighborhood, connected to the stores, restaurants, libraries, parks and trails you love is what the “village” movement offers.

— John Power, Kentfield

Prop. 19’s inheritance rules need to repealed

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the detrimental effects of California Proposition 19 and the urgent need for a revision that safeguards the interests of low- and middle-income families. Proposition 19 passed by a slim margin and eliminated the constitutional provisions allowing parents to transfer their homes to their children without triggering a reassessment to current market value.

For many children of low- and middle-income families, this reassessment is financially crippling, rendering them unable to afford the increased tax burden. These families now face the heartbreaking prospect of having to sell the homes their parents devoted years of hard work to acquire.

What is particularly troubling is the massive financial influence of the California Association of Realtors (CAR). With an exorbitant expenditure of $38 million ($5 per vote), CAR significantly outspent the opposition’s $45,000 (1 cent per vote), compromising the democratic process. This financial dominance raises serious questions about the fairness and integrity of our democratic system.

Furthermore, CAR’s campaign touted funding for fire safety through the California Fire Response Fund but zero dollars have been transferred to this fund.

The monetary motivation behind CAR’s support for Proposition 19 was to increase property turnover and earn higher commissions.

To counteract this exploitation and to protect the interests of middle-class families, I urge readers to sign the petition at RepealTheDeathTax.com before the Dec. 31 deadline. This petition supports a constitutional amendment to revise Proposition 19, specifically removing the section that triggers reassessment to current market value upon inheritance by children.

It is time to prioritize the well-being of our communities over the financial interests of powerful groups. Let us come together and advocate for a fair and just revision to Proposition 19 that ensures a more equitable future for all Californians.

— Roy Fray, Corte Madera

Keep intolerance, violence out of the political sphere

Not that long ago, the idea that violence could be considered as a means to effect political change was considered about as un-American as you can get. When I was a kid, we were so close to the horrors of both world wars (with the Vietnam War raging), that the need for resolution of political differences — including by the peaceful transfer of power — was thought to be not only essential but self-evident. But times seem to change as memories fade.

For those who are considering, or who advocate, anger, intolerance or violence to get what they want politically, it might help to consider the words of former President Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, written at the end of the bloody, devastating Civil War.

“With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.”

I would think true conservatives would want to conserve these principles above all.

— Ben Ballard, Sausalito