Letters: Taco trucks | Discriminatory ban | Outdated assumptions | False pretenses | Second Amendment

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

Arbitrary closing of
taco trucks frustrates

Re: “Popular East Bay taco truck is at risk of being uprooted” (Page B1, March 6).

I am disappointed by the recent closure of the food truck service along Stone Valley Road in Alamo, frustrated with the seemingly arbitrary and ill-considered manner in which it was done, and commend the East Bay Times for investigating this action by the county.

My wife and I routinely walk by these trucks and often enjoy tacos from the trucks in the beauty of Oak Hill Park. Many county residents similarly enjoy the food truck offerings six days a week. This service is a rare gem in a sea of suburban blandness.

The food trucks at times have many customers, but I have never observed vehicles parked in the bike lane, let alone the traffic lanes of Stone Valley Road. If safety is in fact the issue, then the county should investigate possible solutions rather than shutting down the service.

I urge the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to reevaluate their rash decision.

Donald Medwedeff
Danville

Ban discriminates
against disabled

Re: “E-bike trail ban is divisive issue” (Page A1, March 2).

The city of Palo Alto banning battery-assisted bikes is discriminating against Americans with disabilities and should be struck down.

There is a whole segment of society that is being denied the use of parks and trails.

Mike Richardson
Fremont

Outdated assumptions
support HSR project

Re: “Why high-speed rail remains a bargain for Californians” (Page A6, March 3).

The recent commentary on California high-speed rail is based upon outdated assumptions about travel habits and technology. HSR would rely heavily on single passengers (particularly business travelers) and serve a very different market — and a much more affluent one — than the groups and families who drive on Interstate 5 and need a car at their destination. It is simply not realistic.

The ridership and revenue projections supporting the project are highly questionable. Moreover, the analysis ignores the ongoing operating deficit that would have to be borne by taxpayers after the construction is complete.

People are working from home, easing the demand for business travel. Technology like self-driving vehicles and computerized traffic flow controls can substantially increase highway capacity. The alternative to HSR does not need to be the expensive construction of new freeway lanes. The authors rely upon woefully outdated notions about our current and future travel behavior.

Victor Ryerson
Orinda

Rail project sold to state
with false pretenses

Re: “State should cut its losses on high-speed rail” (Page A6, Feb. 23).

I was very pleased to see the East Bay Times definitively advocate for the end of high-speed rail and the High-Speed Rail Authority.

The project, sold to Californians under false pretenses, will never be completed and will continue to cost exponentially more.

However, I was surprised to see you publish the op-ed from Rep. Ro Khana in favor of going forward with it (“Why high-speed rail remains a bargain for Californians,” Page A6, March 3).

Of course, someone who continually votes for vaguely worded multitrillion-dollar spending bills would be all-in.

Clifford Sanburn
San Ramon

Second Amendment
is not sacrosanct

Re: “Second Amendment assumed individual right” (Page A6, Feb. 22).

Sacrosanct is defined as beyond alteration, criticism or interference. Christopher Andrus states the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. He’s completely wrong, but let’s be ridiculous and assume he’s correct.

Over two-thirds of Americans back stricter gun laws. I thought the majority was supposed to rule in a democracy. The 18th Amendment was overturned with the 21st. The Second Amendment is sacrosanct but the 18th wasn’t? How is this possible? Andrus cites all kinds of facts regarding the motivations behind the Founding Fathers’ actions. What he doesn’t mention is that 47,000 people died in 2022 due to guns, the highest number ever. More than 1.1 million people were killed in the last 32 years. That assumes the Founding Fathers didn’t, or wouldn’t care, how many Americans are slaughtered as long as they can continue to possess a gun.

The Second Amendment is sacrosanct? Don’t be ridiculous.

Don Morgan
Concord