Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for Jan. 10, 2026

Thankful for all the Carnegie libraries still in use around US

It’s great that the San Anselmo Library is getting needed renovations (“San Anselmo library carries on during renovations,” Dec. 29) that will preserve this Carnegie library.

I want to add context to the statement made by Doug Holm, chair of the town library advisory board, who is quoted in the story saying “there are not that many of them around still.” Thankfully, there are about 750 of the original 1,700 still in use as libraries throughout the U.S., according to the Carnegie Foundation.

That number is a testament to the genius of the original gift and the support of communities such as San Anselmo that keep this heritage alive.

— Ian Spatz, Ross

Apartment buildings planned for San Rafael are too large

I’m a 40-year resident of Marin, living in San Rafael for the last 15, currently on Mission Avenue across from the Episcopal church.

I understand the need for more housing to revitalize the downtown. A vibrant downtown would be wonderful, but at what cost to quality of life? Seemingly every weekday from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m., there’s a long line of cars backed up at the stop sign at Mission and Court Street. I think it is primarily caused by Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit trains farther down Mission.

I am concerned about what will happen when the 188-unit apartment building at the corner of Fifth Avenue and C Street becomes reality. It could be gridlock. I suspect it could add an extra 200 cars trying to get on Highway 101, which may result in morning and evening backups. This should have been factored into the decision to approve such a large development.

In conjunction with all the other proposed apartment buildings, I worry it will be gridlock on both sides of 101. Officials should consider lowering the number of units allowed in each of these projects. Even if they do, I think it’s going to be chaotic during the morning and evening commutes.

I urge Marin County officials to challenge the state’s mandate on housing. It seems like it’s similar to the current issue of the new carpool-lane hours on 101. One size does not fit all. Leaders should re-evaluate these decisions.

— Brent Zeller, San Rafael

Action in Venezuela violates promises made by Trump

I think the military invasion of Venezuela is yet another example of how completely unbound President Donald Trump is by international law and any need to convince Congress or the American people of the rationale for his military actions.

This is the candidate who insisted that the U.S. should stop “racing to topple foreign regimes that we know nothing about, that we shouldn’t be involved with.” He promised an end to what he called “this destructive cycle of intervention and chaos.”

The administration has offered wildly shifting justifications for blowing up small boats and killing or stranding survivors, calling the vessels “enemy belligerents,” but providing no evidence of their alleged illegality. While Secretary of War Pete Hegseth was describing the drug-interdiction intent of the operation to protect “the safety of the American people, stop the killing, stop the poisoning of the American people,” his boss was pardoning former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernández, who was found guilty by a U.S. jury and received a 45-year sentence for trafficking over 400 tons of cocaine.

The president now offers what is probably the real reason for this incursion: “They took our oil rights. They threw our companies out and we want it back.”

We have a recent and tragic history of the use of U.S. military might to secure oil resources and foster regime change in the Gulf Wars and Iraq and of our own failed efforts to topple governments in Central and South America over the past 125 years.

The president’s unbound impulsiveness, desire to appear strong and combative, and inability to carefully plan for inevitable consequences of his decisions are further evidence of the damage being done to America’s standing in the world community. “America First” really does mean going it alone, without justification or explanation.

— Bob Brown, Novato

Judge’s argument about firearms was ludicrous

A U.S. appeals court recently ruled that California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most parts of the state was unconstitutional. I think U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke sounded ludicrous in saying that “because openly carrying weapons was a ‘historical practice’ in the 18th century, it cannot be outlawed today.”

Does anyone really need to highlight how childishly facile his argument is? No women’s suffrage, slavery, prohibition, no spitting on the sidewalk — take your pick — all would be preserved and in force today by that logic.

If proponents of the Second Amendment want to preserve the historical status quo, perhaps the way forward is to allow it — providing they permit the same weapons that were historically permissible at the time the laws were drafted. Go ahead, allow “open carry” for muzzle-loading muskets and pistols. Make my day.

— Tom Short, San Rafael

Commentary on need for more billionaires missed mark

I am writing in response to Gonzalo Schwarz’s Another View commentary published Dec. 28 with the headline “America needs more billionaires fueled by the American Dream, not fewer.” I disagree with that premise.

After the Gilded Age in the late 1800s, the number of very wealthy individuals in the United States shrank due to the Great Depression and wealth taxes. Even after World War II, those numbers remained low, even as the middle class grew and the U.S. entered what many recall as a “golden age.” Not until the 1990s, when the top marginal tax rate dropped from 70% to 28%, did we see a significant increase in the number of billionaires in the country.

There are almost 1,000 billionaires in the U.S. today. They represent a tiny amount of the population while controlling 5% of the household wealth in the country. Historically, more billionaires means more wealth concentration: 45 years ago, the top 0.1% owned 9% of the wealth; now they own 14%. And our national experience with robber barons is not very positive, despite their philanthropic largess.

I think it is laughable to stoke fears that wealthy people will flee regions with high taxes. People who want to generate wealth go where wealth is generated. I suspect they think the high costs of expensive locales helps keep out the “riff raff.” I don’t believe anyone is going to leave New York because a progressive mayor is in office; Park Avenue will not be abandoned anytime in the foreseeable future.

Although I am not a billionaire, I have climbed into the top 5% who Gonzalo says, “pay 60% of all taxes.” I can testify that paying those taxes is not a debilitating annual burden. Consequently, I just can’t summon much sympathy for the argument that the rich are already paying their “fair share.” As expressed in the Bible (Luke 12:48): “From everyone who has been given much, much will be required.” So shut up and pay your taxes.

— Jack Dillon, San Anselmo

Moderate immigration is a benefit to our communities

I am writing in regard to the editorial by Bloomberg Media published in the IJ on Dec. 29 with the headline “The US needs to welcome immigrants, not demonize them.” I think the authors failed to distinguish between having “some” versus having “many.”

I believe that, with moderate numbers, immigrants integrate their lives into the communities where they settle. While retaining some of their home country’s customs, they strive to fit in by learning their new country’s language and culture, and merging their skills to become an integral part of their new communities.

When there are many, I believe immigrants are more likely to stick with their fellow immigrants, hold to their original language and form separate communities. They are less likely to favor their new country’s culture. This can cause resentment, which is magnified if government payments are directed to support them but not for others with similar incomes.

Americans have learned much from other societies, but it is important to support a basic, integrative community with shared values to really strive. Let’s invite, in moderate numbers, those who really want to join us.

— Bill Strawbridge, Mill Valley