Without reform, Santa Clara County grants look like favors

by



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

Without reform, county
grants look like favors

Re: “County assisting operation tied to Evan Low” (Page A1, May 21).

After reading this article, county residents should review the June 2024 Civil Grand Jury report “No Strings Attached: County of Santa Clara Board Inventory Items,” which deals with this very subject.

The grand jury’s final comment was, “The inventory item [aka, grants] program, as outlined by the Board, purports to have merit and admirable intentions; however, without a fundamental change in how the program is managed, it continues to have the appearance of being a tool for political favoritism.”

The report says the current process “has no known Board authorizing resolution, no consistent operational rules or controls, no permanent funding limits, and no specific accountability process.”

The grand jury made concrete recommendations. It’s time they were enacted.

Russell Wood
Mountain View

Proposed changes
strip parking safeguards

East Palo Alto has always valued community input in shaping policies that affect our daily lives. Unfortunately, recent changes to the proposed Residential Parking Permit program threaten that tradition.

The original program ensured fairness by providing one free permit per household and requiring 67% neighborhood support before implementation. The revised version removes both protections, introducing new fees and eliminating the need for community approval.

This top-down approach places an unnecessary financial burden on working families and ignores the voices of the very residents the program claims to serve.

We need a parking program that reflects our city’s values: equity, transparency and local input. The City Council must do better.

Ravneel Chaudhary
East Palo Alto

Founders gave power
to set tariffs to Congress

Re: “Global economic officials gather amid trade war” (Page C7, May 21).

The article said that Donald Trump imposed tariffs on U.S. allies. While Trump imposed tariffs on our traditional allies, Trump’s allies, Russia and North Korea, were spared.

The tariff chaos illustrates the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, who granted sole authority to set tariffs to Congress.

Eric Nordman
Palo Alto

Responsible nations
set spending priorities

Re: “Affordability isn’t the only policy question” (Page A6, May 21).

If affordability isn’t the only policy question, it is the most urgent. The U.S. is in deep trouble because affordability has been underconsidered. Marcia Farriss’s example of $45 million for a military parade is just one illustration of boondoggles and pork that siphon funds from essential priorities.

“Can we afford not to do it?” has been oversubscribed in welfare, health care, education, military, government efficiency and climate change. Each of these areas, though essential, can stand measured funding reduction with small loss of efficacy.

There are always worthwhile and popular things on which to spend public money, while every wasteful project has a vocal constituency. Costs of reduced expenditure is speculative and politically charged, while the cost of unchecked spending is real and growing. The most existential problem we face is the federal budget deficit. Continuing to ignore affordability risks lack of resources for meeting future needs.

Fred Gutmann
Cupertino

Trump’s tariffs will
hammer consumers

Re: “Trump riled by business response” (Page C7, May 21).

Now Donald Trump is talking like a Democrat. Businesses say they will have to increase prices to cover the higher costs of tariffs. That has always been the case. Tariffs worldwide are paid by the importer to discourage buying from lower-cost countries. Trump called on Walmart to eat the tariffs in a post. He argued that Walmart makes billions in profits, so it can afford to eat the increased costs. That is something Bernie Sanders is more likely to say than a Republican president.

Trump tariffs have always been a tax on the American consumer, not the exporter. The president boasts of increased revenue from tariffs, but that revenue is paid by the importer and ultimately the American consumer. Suggesting that importers eat the costs is a business tax that hurts the economy. In the end, the consumer always pays.

Dave Riggs
Aptos

U.S. must raise its
game on health care



<

Leave a Comment