Walmart's bad record a long one
In response to Livermore Residents for Responsible Growth's mailer dated March 6, Walmart negotiates and secures tax breaks to locate in your town, pay lower property taxes and pay lower corporate taxes.
Walmart is anti-union. Walmart pays minimum wages to often part-time employees, leaving them eligible for food stamps, which they can use to buy groceries at Walmart -- this is known as the Walmart-to-food-stamps-pipeline.
Walmart suppliers are predominantly overseas because it is 'too costly" to make goods in America. Six of the 10 wealthiest people in America are in the Walton family. Six individuals in one family are wealthier than 40 percent of the poorest people in America. And these multibillionaires pay a lower tax rate on their personal income than we do.
Finally, and to me, most importantly, Walmart sells the gun that Adam Lanza used to murder 20 kindergartners and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. And for this reason, I haven't shopped at a Walmart store since 2012.
I boycott Walmart, for these moral objections. I will never again shop at Walmart, at any location. Do you think we need a grocery or produce store at the old Nob Hill Foods site at Pacific Avenue?
Livermore Residents for Responsible Growth has valid concerns regarding quality of life for this site's immediately abutting residents. I'm not sure if those concerns would be different for any other retailer at this site. Maybe I don't know what it means when the Livermore Planning Commission and City Council choose to do business with "developers" and Walmart. Livermore seems hellbent on this deal, with little regard for the people who already live here.
My objection is to Walmart specifically, and to Livermore, as it is guilty by association. By the way, I do vote here in town, and I believe in taxes; taxes pay teachers, firefighters and cops.
Coverage out of touch with communities
Jennifer Modenessi's San Ramon Valley Times article described how Plan Bay Area (PBA) and MTC intends to shove hundreds of high-density housing units for low- to very-low-income residents into our communities.
What is strikingly absent is concern for how these agencies can dictate such. No vote, no means of redress. In a free society, any person can make offers on available homes. True, many may not be able to afford a home in Danville, Orinda or Beverly Hills, but is that not just reality? Most cannot afford a yacht either.
Zoning laws were created to ensure a commonality in a community. PBA wants to sidestep normal zoning and impose their vision on us. She mentions there is "opposition to change." In Danville there was standing-room-only opposition at all town meetings.
What is also not considered is that these poor people and their children are likely to not be well accepted in these high-income and highly educated communities. Further, there are no jobs for them there either.
Zuck can't point finger over spying
Did anyone read the big article about Mark Zuckerberg and other big Internet players complaining about the NSA's program to collect metadata phone numbers and phone call placements?
They are lobbying the administration hard to reduce the NSA's ability to collect such data, even though there has been ZERO evidence that such data has been used to hurt any of their customers. Meanwhile, Facebook, Google and others routinely "mine" every piece of information they can get about the personal habits of millions of Americans every day, and sell this highly personal info to data-mining companies that supposedly use it to help companies sell products to us in a more targeted manner.
Doesn't anyone care about this far more insidious and enormous invasion of our privacy? One of the companies has even bragged it has 1,500 pieces of personal info on over a hundred million citizens. Why isn't anyone complaining about that? Where are the ACLU and the politicians who are so "shocked" about the NSA's program, which is far less intrusive? Oh yeah ... they're too busy cashing contributions they've received from Facebook, Google and the like.
Writer forgot about fathers skipping out
In answer to Joe Silva's article, "Anti-male news bias is tiresome," I somewhat agree with his letter but from a completely different perspective.
He states there are all kinds of programs to get girls interested in science, etc. A point in question: countless articles are printed showing only mothers who are taking care of their children, sad to say, whether driving them into the ocean, abusing them in some way, and on the positive side, working their hearts out to provide sustenance for their children, yet being left homeless with children, on and on and on.
To reference this article, yes ... where are these boys, men, fathers? They are not to be found but possibly in the local bars or on street corners picking up yet another candidate for their pleasure. Only the mothers are being held responsible for the rearing of their children -- good, bad, or indifferent -- but not the absent male who had something to do with this situation. Seems the only thing they contributed was the sperm that resulted in their children!
As he stated, 90 percent of women are in the nursing field. I agree, these "BOYS" certainly should take a class, first and foremost the class of preventing unwanted pregnancies. These irresponsible males, regardless of age, are making headway to being called "The Father of our Country" but in a negative light. I am not releasing these girls from their own responsibilities. They too have a role to play. Just say, "No!"
As he said, he is so tired of hearing about the "poor girls." Does he know why they are branded as such? No fathers to take the reins of being a responsible father in any way, shape or form. The next time an article appears regarding child neglect, take note if the "father" is mentioned. I seriously doubt you will find his name. Yes ... "Anti-Male News Bias is Tiresome."
Minimum wage hikes lead to cuts
It's simple math. A business owner knows what his fixed labor cost is in order to be profitable. If he can only pay 100 dollars an hour to his labor force, he hires 12 workers at 8.25 an hour. If he's required to pay them 10.00 an hour, he only hires 10. Two people are getting laid off. Since the president has never run a business, he has no way of knowing this. Perhaps someone other than your readers should tell him this.