Bigotry fueling opponents of General Plan
I read the report of the Danville General Plan meeting with considerable dismay over the seemingly widespread nature of stereotyping and bigotry right here at home.
I was especially confounded by the testimony of a woman from China, who was passionately defending the uniqueness of "Danvillians," though she lives in San Ramon. She gets a vote?
Has she no idea that until fairly recently, immigrants from "Red China" would have been viewed with the very same bias with which she now characterizes others? Those who came before fought similar prejudice that she now imposes on others.
And as Tom Barnidge notes, eligibility would kick in for people earning less than 60 percent of the town's median income. For Danville, that cutoff point is about $89,000, and we all know just how riff-raffy those folks are. Coincidentally, during 26 years of living in Danville, I have rarely earned that much. And yet, here we are.
And a Marxist agenda that begins with affordable housing in Danville? Did so many fail or skip logics class?
Housing plan opposition ugly
Danville is revealing a dark and ugly side of its persona. Protesting a plan to build affordable housing and extending a helpful hand to a fellow human being is making the unpleasant statement that "I made it, and that's all that matters." Is that who we really are? I hope not!
Column from Barnidge snide and baseless
In Tom Barnidge's March 4 column about citizen opposition to Danville's 2030 General Plan, he refers to Danville residents as having incomes that hover "at $148,000" (how I wish) and who have "his-and-hers Mercedes-Benzes."
Has he been peeking into everyone's garage? No one I know owns a Mercedes-Benz, let alone two. This is snarky journalism at its best. Obviously, Mr. B. doesn't know the residents of Danville and feels free to pass judgment on 42,000 people.
Barnidge makes no mention of the city's efforts to change land-use designation, from agricultural to residential, without the citizens' vote required for such changes. So much for Barnidge's admonition that "rules are rules." Residents strongly support adherence to the Measure S required vote for any such change.
Perhaps the strongest opposition to Danville's General Plan is its attempt to make downtown Danville look like Walnut Creek, with its attendant traffic and parking nightmare. What's next? High-rise parking structures? Then there's the impact on schools.
Please keep snarky and uninformed journalism out of your publication.
Bag ban a case of overreaching
Where in the Constitution is it mandated that we need to regulate shopping bags? After a recent trip to Alameda County to make a purchase, I was asked to buy a bag for 10 cents. I chose not to. Meanwhile, a few miles away in Contra Costa, I can get as many bags as I need for my purchases for free.
Supposedly, by being forced to purchase bags I will reuse those I already have, or buy stronger ones to use all the time. One way or another, I will need to keep them in my car, underfoot and remember to take them into the store with me. If they get dirty, I will need to wash and disinfect them or risk disease. The store, or the local government (or both) will use this revenue for profits or featherbedding. Since I already recycle my plastic bags and use paper to carry out my garbage, I wonder what is gained.
We live and learn, I guess. I learned I won't shop in Alameda County.
Budget mess is GOP's fault, not president's
In reply to "It's been Obama's mess all along," although the White House tours are staffed by volunteers, paid security guards are used for protection all the hours the tours are in service. Instead of laying off the security guards, they can be used in more useful areas. Also, your readers need to understand that people have to be invited on these tours. The invitations have to go through a Congress member and are reserved for the big donors in his or her district.
As for blaming Obama for the sequestration, Congress has to vote to make it possible, and the Republicans overwhelmingly voted for it.
Citizens United ruling should be overturned
The Supreme Court's decision in the case of "Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission" has had terrible unanticipated consequences. We all need to work to get a constitutional amendment overturning the decision.
If left intact, the court's ruling will eventually lead to a situation in which large corporations (domestic and foreign) and a few very rich people will control (through Political Action Committees) our senators and representatives, and thus the entire country. We will go back to the lord-and-peasant society of the Middle Ages.
Help stand against lab's nuke madness
It is estimated that the total costs of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex over the next decade will exceed $640 billion! Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, the costs and inherent danger of our nuclear weapons program is putting us all at risk of actual and fiscal annihilation.
We need to bring serious public pressure to bear on the federal agencies and private companies involved in the nuclear weapons complex. We have the ability to bring some of this pressure locally. I will join other citizens at the gates of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, our local nuclear weapons research and design facility, to stand vigil for nuclear disarmament once a month.
The vigil will take place at the lab's East Avenue gate (at East Avenue and Vasco Road) from 7 to 8:30 a.m. on the Friday after the first Thursday of every month. It is a small spark that can hopefully add to a collective fire to end this nuclear madness.