Letters: ‘Progressive’ parcel tax would backfire on Oakland residents

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

‘Progressive’ tax would
backfire on Oakland

Re: “Oakland should enact progressive parcel tax” (Page A8, Nov. 23).

Beth Weinberger’s proposed “progressive” parcel tax based on square footage would, in fact, be regressive, selectively over-burdening those in larger homes without any consideration of their location. It could further devastate shops, restaurants, startups, and small industrial and R&D companies, many of whom rent in, or own, large old buildings, but have low revenues and are often unprofitable and struggling to survive.

Oakland already has high retail, office and industrial vacancy rates, and businesses with low sales will be further harmed by a tax that is not based on revenue, profitability or actual property value, but simply on square footage. Rather than heaping another tax on top of existing high taxes, Oakland must better manage overtime, and become more selective and more efficiently execute capital projects, improvements and operations, so that more of our businesses can survive, and our resident children will not be further priced out of living here.

Joel Libove
Berkeley

Effective criminal
justice takes time

Re: “Alameda County should stop coddling criminals” (Page A6, Nov. 21).

In his letter advocating that society “restore punishment as a societal norm,” Brian Foster misses a key part of punishing offenders.

The National Institute of Justice in 1998 published a report showing that the most effective way to deter crime is not simply to have punishment but to have the application of punishment be a certainty.

Policies aimed at achieving that certainty always need to be weighed against preserving and respecting civil rights, and that can be a time-consuming process.

Creating policies that mandate specific charging decisions does not increase the certainty that there will be punishment. Instead, the mandate increases the likelihood of compromise and delay.

Chris Brown
Oakland

Don’t balance budget
with animal shelter staff

Re: “With overtime and other staffing costs ballooning, a Bay Area city attempts to fix its budget crisis” (Nov. 13).

I am shocked to hear that the city is $30 million in debt, and they are considering cutting essential workers from the Hayward Shelter.

Animals will be euthanized if there is not staff. The shelter has always stayed in its budget; they need to find another way. We work so hard to make things better, and now we’re being penalized for being under budget. Obviously, the city doesn’t care how many animals will die, but the community does.

The community must do something to stop this. There are other areas that are not essential that the city can tap into. Let’s start with the ones that didn’t stay within their budget.

Helen Botelho
Hayward

Immigration policy
must fall to feds

Contrary to what many are taught today, America’s founders prized freedom and saw it (correctly) as flourishing organically in a “bottom-up” fashion. Thus, they wanted the U.S.A. to be a union of predominantly independent states comprised of mostly independent individuals. So, as the 10th Amendment indicates, they rejected “top-down” rule by the federal government on most issues, even slavery. Opponents hoped that popular demand would eventually abolish slavery democratically. But, ultimately, this required a bloody Civil War.

Nonetheless, our founders believed most issues in society should be left to the states to decide, including such hot-button issues today as abortion and LGBTQ rights. But some issues must be federally controlled. This includes immigration. States and communities cannot establish immigration policy for a simple reason. Because we have open borders between our states, the most lenient immigration policy of any state would essentially become the policy for the entire country.

Christopher Andrus
Dublin

Comic offers opposition
rather than balance

Re: “Mallard Fillmore” (Page B1, Nov. 21).

Recent letters to the editor supporting the continued presence of this unfunny, conspiracy-focused comic claim that it only offers balance to the page.

Just under “Doonesbury,” it offers up a complete rendering of the opposition to an educated society, a system that honors science and protection for our planet and actual support for the vital working class in America. The piece on Nov. 21 is a classic “Mallard Fillmore” misrepresentation of where our taxes go — the military-industrial complex, health care and a social services sector that actually tries to help the citizens of our country. His 50% narrative ignores the tech elites who pay few taxes and have now put their support behind the most corrupt administration in our nation’s history.

This is not funny, amusing or informative. It is only here that this so-called comic can exist in a paper. No editorial page would put it in a valued space.

Scott Loeliger
Benecia