Allies of Golden Gate Village are not going away
At the October Marin Housing Authority meeting, two plans were presented for the rehabilitation and governance of the Golden Gate Village public housing community in Marin City. Questions and arguments were presented for both sides. With many issues unresolved, a decision was put off until November.
However, on Nov. 15 only one plan was on the agenda and only members of the housing authority were allowed to further promote its ideas while attacking the proposals of the residents. The Golden Gate Village Resident Council and their professional representatives were excluded from the agenda. When the representative of the resident council’s strategy team asked for time to present the residents position, no extra accommodation beyond the standard two minutes was granted.
Has Marin County completely abandoned concepts of fairness and democracy? The constituents of the elected members of the Marin County Board of Supervisors who make up the majority of the Marin Housing Authority Board of Commissioners are not going away. We will continue to advocate for moral and racial justice for our neighbors in Golden Gate Village.
— Nancy Miller, Mill Valley
Marin should back away from all-electric mandate
I think the Marin County Board of Supervisors were foolish to pass new legislation requiring all new construction and renovations to use electricity instead of having the option to use gas (“Marin County mandates all-electric new construction,” Nov. 16).
When I see that the Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is running ads practically begging for conservation, it tells me that there is already a shortage of electricity. I am not hearing about new power plants scheduled to be built. The supervisors’ decision is on top of the state’s mandated upcoming switch to electric vehicles. Those cars will need charging on a regular basis.
Marin County leaders need to wake up. There appears to be a shortage of electricity looming on the horizon.
— Robert Stupack, Novato
Environmental leadership group seeks alternatives
As a student in the Marin School of Environmental Leadership program at Terra Linda High School, I would like to share that our group, for our semester-long project, has been learning about the benefits of electric vehicles, renewable energy and ways to conserve energy. We are working alongside MCE (formerly Marin Clean Energy) to achieve our goal of educating the public about the benefits of both conserving energy and switching to more renewable energy sources.
Coal power plants harm the environment. They produce a large amount of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Solar farms are 100% renewable and do not cause damage to the environment. Our lifestyle needs to change in order to ensure a sustainable world for future generations.
Your life can be improved by implementing more renewable practices. One way to reduce emissions and climate impact is to invest in solar panels or an electric vehicle. If you have already purchased solar panels, you can add on a battery to capture more energy. These may be more costly to purchase but, over time, they will save you money from either electricity bills or gas prices.
Some easy ways to reduce your energy consumption include carpooling, walking and biking. These methods of transportation save money and help save the environment.
Lastly, you can look into MCE and their “deep green” plans. MCE is a local renewable energy provider across Contra Costa, Marin, Napa and Solano counties. Its energy plans will make it so that 100% of the energy in your home will come from renewable energy sources.
The choice is yours, you can take action and work to make your home more renewable through MCE programs or take other ideas presented. It is up to you to make change and to reduce your carbon footprint.
— Meadow McPherson, San Rafael
Remove Richmond Bridge bike lane right away
I am writing in regard to the recently published article about the study of the bike lane on the westbound Richmond-San Rafael Bridge (“Richmond-San Rafael Bridge bike path enters final year of trial run,” Nov. 20). I think it contained a number of conflicting views about the lane contributing to additional vehicle traffic or not having an impact.
A study reported that, since January 2021, an average of 190 cyclists used the lane in each direction per day with a big majority on weekends, indicating most are pleasure riders, not commuters. On weekdays, the average was 68 per day. Pedestrian use was negligible.
According to the article, more than “80,000 vehicles cross the bridge on weekdays. Westbound drivers can experience close to half-hour delays during peak commute times.” That’s a key statement, in my opinion. Those delays will get worse for three reasons: people are getting used to the world following the COVID-19 pandemic and are driving more, the economy should improve and, when Bay Area counties are forced to add a huge number of homes, all highways and roads will become more congested.
We do not need a fourth year of this study. The bike lane should be eliminated immediately to improve westbound driving times.
I think the proof this will work is stated within the article. A study of the effect of the 2018 conversion of the eastbound right lane from an emergency lane to a traffic light-controlled vehicle lane during the afternoon commute helped congestion issues “that existed before that lane opened in 2018 have largely ‘disappeared’ and reduced travel times by 14 minutes from Highway 101 to the toll plaza … traffic incidents and crashes on the bridge have also had a 70% reduction, according to the study.”
We must compare the huge number of motor vehicle drivers using the bridge to the very small number of cyclists and pedestrians, especially on weekdays. Which group is more important?
— John Neuenburg, San Rafael
Cost per trip illustrates issue with bike lane
If you divide the number of bicycle trips reported to have crossed the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge during the last three years (“Richmond-San Rafael Bridge bike path enters final year of trial run,” Nov. 20) and divide it by the estimated $20 million price tag it works out to about $83 a trip.
Would all those vocal members of the Marin County Bicycle Coalition be willing to pony up that amount for the privilege? If any reader of the IJ has ever been in the extensive traffic that backs up to get into Marin in the mornings, the decision is obvious. It costs too much and the bike lane benefits too few, not to mention adversely impacts air quality with all those cars idling trying to get in Marin.
The experiment is complete. Remove the barriers and let workers get to work. There are plenty of other places bicyclists can ride.
— Joseph Brooke, Point Reyes Station
NATO should welcome Ukraine, give ultimatum
President Vladimir Putin has shown Russia’s military hand by invading Ukraine. Ukraine is prevailing militarily, but with loss of civilian life and structure.
Russia’s military is not the equal of Ukraine and it appears to be far inferior to the U.S. and other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
I suggest NATO leadership offer immediate membership to Ukraine, which would be happy to join.
Upon Ukraine joining, NATO can tell Russia to cease its invasion of Ukraine. It should tell Russia to return all Ukrainian territory or NATO will join Ukraine to ensure Russia’s immediate expulsion, as well as the return of territory.
Some say Putin would threaten an atomic attack, but attacking a NATO country with an atomic weapon would invite overwhelming atomic response by NATO, the death of Putin and the ruin of Russia. It’s a card Putin cannot play.
Let’s put a quick end to Russia’s invasion, and the threat Russia poses to European countries. If those European countries are not already in NATO, they should join now.
— Brian Stompe, Novato
