Letters: Free BART would cost a family of four $672 annually. Bad idea.
Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
Reasons pile up not
to make BART free
Re: “To help BART, makes rides free and raise taxes to cover cost” (Page A6, Dec. 11).
I was surprised at the suggestion by Michael O’Hare that we make BART free to all riders by increasing taxes on each person $3.23 a week, which he minimizes by saying it’s “less than your Monday latte.” That works out to $167.96 per year, and $671.84 for a family of four.
• Opening the taxpayer’s wallet to BART will only increase the demands of unions and workers for more pay as they sense there is no limit to taxpayer funds.
• People place a value on what they pay for. Zero cost equals zero value. People care for things they pay for and are vested in the product or service. We pay road taxes for roads, bridge tolls for bridge access, etc., although I’m sure bridges would be the next “free service” desired by Mr. O’Hare.
• Free rides would turn BART into a rolling homeless hotel.
• BART needs to live within its budget and reduce costs, not expand during tough times while requesting more money.
Chris Wood
Pleasanton
Column’s ideas would
set fire to the economy
Re: “How Trump can quickly help the working class” (Page A7, Dec. 17).
In his op-ed, Marc Thiessen describes how Republicans can pass two major pieces of legislation in 2025 with no Democratic votes.
The first, Thiessen suggests, should repeal the IRA, chop the $80 billion given to the IRS, explode the university endowment income tax 25-fold, and fund the border wall and mass deportations. Each would be disastrous, accelerating climate chaos, rewarding billionaire tax cheating, making college even less viable for disadvantaged people, and starving employers of labor most Americans won’t do.
The second, Thiessen says, should further cut taxes on wealthy people and corporations, and implement “DOGE” recommendations, essentially dismantling federal government services to citizens. This would privatize health care and social security, end environmental protections, and enable racism, sexism and fascist populism to flourish. Government of, by and for the wealthy, with citizens disunited, here we come. Burn, baby, burn.
Doug McKenzie
Berkeley
Liberty Mutual’s exit
puts lie to their ads
Re: “Liberty Mutual to pull out of insurance markets” (Page B1, Dec. 20).
I’m confused by Liberty Mutual’s ongoing ads with the tag line “only pay for what you need.”
Three years ago I needed, and paid for, homeowners insurance, and Liberty Mutual canceled coverage for everyone in my ZIP code.
Today’s news is they will no longer cover renters and condo units. Guess those people didn’t pay or need that coverage.
Isn’t it false advertising to claim “only pay for what you need” then refuse to write coverage?
Pete Coenen
Lafayette
Trump administration
aims to choke education
Re: “Trump’s education pick shows he understands assignment” (Page A6, Dec. 19).
This opinion piece solidifies Donald Trump’s plan to institute Project 2025 and “repurpose, and shrink” “and then turn out the lights” on the Department of Education.
Writer Erika Donalds’ tagline states that she is the CEO of OptimaEd and a visiting fellow in the Center for Educational Policy at the Heritage Foundation, the creator of Project 2025. OptimaEd’s mission is to promote “virtue-based education through charter and virtual courses.” Charter schools do not serve students equitably by picking who they keep.
Trump’s campaign contributors want to privatize education and are putting Linda McMahon, a billionaire businesswoman with an unused teaching credential, in charge to do it. When questioned about Project 2025 during his presidential campaign, Trump said that he would ban people involved in Project 2025 from his administration — just another lie in Trump’s hat.
JJ Kael
Oakland
Boost mental health
in face of vigilantism
Re: “Vet is acquitted in NYC subway chokehold trial” (Page A2, Dec. 10).
I’ve heard it said that U.S. citizens worship vigilante violence. This certainly is borne out by the Associated Press article.
A year ago, Daniel Penny, a Marine veteran, under the guise of providing safety in a subway car, took it upon himself to place Jordan Neely, a despondent, mentally challenged, unhoused man, in a chokehold. Several minutes into this chokehold, Neely died. Penny has now been cleared of manslaughter and all other charges against him.
The article states, “While celebrating later at a Manhattan pub with his attorneys, he said he felt ‘great.’” My moral compass tells me there’s nothing to celebrate, any more than it would have been acceptable to celebrate the knee on the neck of George Floyd.
Our society should provide more mental health and housing safety nets, instead of placing emphasis on exonerating vigilantes.
Sharon Brown
Walnut Creek