Letters to the editor

How low will labor go after hit piece on Oliverio?

Re: “Vicious hit against Pierluigi Oliverio is unwarranted” (Editorial, May 20):

Thank you for shining a light on the organized labor hit piece against Oliverio. Having received those mailers, my initial thought was how low can this go?

It is no secret that the police union holds a grudge. I was curious enough to check out civil litigation settlements against the city of San Jose for claims that include police misconduct. On governing.com I found the average annual payout by the city of San Jose exceeded $11 million over each of the years 2013-2015, with a single judgment of $11 million in 2016 for excessive force by police. If the union is genuinely concerned about a $10,000 civil settlement, proactively reducing tort claims against the city due to police misconduct would make a much further reaching statement in that direction.

I find it curious no one appears to have commented on or noticed that the hit pieces against Oliverio are conspicuously silent on which other candidate they endorse. — Jeff Tepper, resident of Supervisorial District 4, San Jose

Measure B could bankrupt San Jose

My husband and I have lived in San Jose since 1980. We’re in our 80s now, but in all these years we’ve never seen such a cynical scam as Measure B. It won’t help seniors or veterans, but it could bankrupt our city.

Two developers are preying on the compassion of San Jose residents to stick us with the bill while they pave over our precious open lands and exempt

themselves from mitigating any of the traffic, environmental or other costs.

We could never afford to live in the gated community they want to build. But we’ll pay for it with higher taxes and suffer the consequences of increased traffic and having our police, fire, water and other city services spread even more thinly.

Please vote no on B and yes on C to stop their deception! — Surjeet and Rasik Patel, San Jose

To raise affordability Cox will optimize operations

California Democratic gubernatorial candidates offer various proposals to make college more “affordable” for specific groups of people. The plans all require taxpayers to pay the difference between market-rate college costs and the subsidized, or “affordable” rates.

Wasn’t government-sponsored college loans originally created to help make college more “affordable”? And what happened? The student loans fueled college-education demand. And colleges responded by increasing teaching employee and staff compensation and benefits and student amenities.

Now, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, student loans total over $1.28 trillion, the second highest form of debt after mortgage debt. According to the U.S. Department of Education, the student loan default rate is 11.5 percent, which also reports that over the past five years, the rate has decreased 3.2 percentage points from a high of 14.7 percent). And the payment delinquency rate has also climbed, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which states the reasons are complex, but probable drivers include college tuition hikes, the lingering effects of the Great Recession and declining rates of students completing their degrees.

These gubernatorial candidates’ ideas will not increase affordability but should increase their chances of being elected.

John Cox has the better idea to improve affordability: Operate colleges more efficiently. — Jerry Mungai, San Jose