Letters to the editor

Zoning arguments don’t hold up on second reading

Pierluigi Oliverio’s arguments against eliminating single-family home zoning (“Eliminating single-family home zoning is a bad idea,” Opinion section, Aug. 30) don’t hold up on second reading.

First, he claims that increased density will increase competition for street parking. That may be true and is not unsolvable; new housing might have garages, cities could charge for permits, and some people might opt for ridesharing services.

Second, he claims that cities make “promises” that people’s zoning won’t change. There are no “promises” here, just laws that can be changed when circumstances require it, as they do now.

Finally, he gives a silly example of a family being outbid by a “profit-motivated buyer.” We already have people from all over the world investing in Bay Area real estate for profit, and if buyers build four units where there was one, doesn’t that increase the housing supply and bring prices down eventually?

Eliminating single-family zoning should be done all across the Bay Area.

— Mark Ruzon, Mountain View

Zoning arguments hit mark for single-family homes

Pierluigi Oliverio’s oped (“Eliminating single-family home zoning is a bad idea,” Opinion section, Aug. 30) is spot on. Existing single-family neighborhoods are on the chopping block in San Jose and throughout California. San Jose is thinking about revising its General Plan to allow fourplexes to replace single-family homes, and state Sens. Scott Wiener and Toni Atkins continue to introduce housing legislation, such as SB 1120 and SB 899, which basically annihilates single-family home zoning and lines the pockets of developers.

Single-family homeowners need to fight back against this insanity that makes them the scapegoats for the state’s housing problems. If passed, these zoning changes will cause irreparable, irreversible damage to the community character of single-family home neighborhoods.

We should also demand that our local and state elected officials halt all land use legislation until we understand the aftermath of the pandemic and can fully participate in the public engagement process.

We cannot afford to be part of these experimental housing policies that will most likely fail.

— Tina Toni, San Jose

Hiring released prisoners would fill up fire crews

The letter regarding the lack of firefighters in Bonny Doon (“State misplaced priorities on its inmate fire crews,” Opinion section, Aug. 30) highlighted the shortage of available firefighters. However, I can’t agree with keeping humans in prison to risk dying of COVID so they are available at $1 an hour to fight fires.

The former prisoners, who are trained by Cal Fire, should be allowed to be hired as full-pay employees. The shortage would be erased and people who worked hard and earned an opportunity would be employed.

— Joan Klein, San Jose

Prop. 15 is wrong way to fund California schools

Thank you for the well-researched editorial (“Prop. 15 won’t fix biggest California property tax issue,” Opinion section, Aug. 28) on Proposition 15, the split property tax roll initiative; you got it right.

Although school funding is a serious issue in California, Proposition 15 is the wrong approach. Many tenants leasing space in commercial properties, including small businesses and nonprofit organizations, are located in buildings valued at over $3 million and have leases that allow the property owner to pass through property taxes to the tenants. The impact of Proposition 15 on these struggling businesses and organizations will undoubtedly be much higher expenses. The $3 million cutoff is just too low as it will ensnare too many small businesses.

While restaurants, barbershops and small retail stores are fighting to stay afloat during the pandemic Proposition 15 will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back. We might as well title it as the “Small Business Evisceration Act of 2020.”

— Brian Ponty, San Carlos

Prop. 15 chance to undo Prop. 13 funding loss

Re: “Prop. 15 won’t fix biggest California property tax issue” (Editorial, Aug. 28):

When we were growing up in the flatlands of Berkeley, our elementary schools had librarians in the library. The playgrounds remained unlocked after school and on weekends, with playground supervisors. And California schools were among the best in the nation. Then came Proposition 13.

Whatever security it has given homeowners over the years has been greatly offset by the damage done. Now we have a chance to undo some of that damage.

Proposition 15, unlike the countless bonds we pass, which are Band-Aids, will keep money flowing into the schools year after year. It will continue to protect current homeowners; in fact, once our schools are fully funded, parents will be able to save the huge amounts they now spend on private schools.

No other state lets corporations off the hook. It’s time for them to pay their fair share in California.

— Susan and Louis Segal,

Oakland