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

Google’s downtown plan a winner for San Jose

Re: “Empty lots, empty promises” (Page A1, March 15).

Sunday’s front page article misses important context. In 2018, Amazon elicited $2.1 billion in public subsidies from New York City and Virginia for office projects, among dozens of corporate expansions greased by taxpayer largesse.

San Jose and Google, in contrast, agreed on a downtown campus without any public subsidies. No tax breaks. No publicly-funded infrastructure. No redevelopment money. Nada.

Like any property owner, Google can build or not. Yet even if Google never lifts a shovel, local taxpayers benefit massively. Google paid the city triple the land’s appraised value. Property reassessments have resulted in tens of millions of new tax revenue to schools, the city and county. Google already paid $12.5 million in “community benefits” to local nonprofits under the deal, and it will pay an unprecedented $54 million by 2031.

Google stalled its plans amid a global pandemic and a languishing national office market. Our community still wins.

Rep. Sam Liccardo
San Jose

Moving campus would hurt kids, community

Re: “Panel recommends closure of 5 schools” (Page B1, March 12).

I was disappointed to read the Mercury News article because it failed to mention a major component of the district’s proposal: relocating Hammer Montessori Elementary School.

Although Hammer is not technically listed for closure, relocating the magnet program would effectively displace the students and families who attend it. For many families, relocation has consequences similar to a closure — students lose the campus that anchors their community, and families who chose the program for its location may no longer be able to attend.

Because Hammer is a magnet school, the district has also not confirmed whether students will receive the same no-cost benefits provided at neighborhood schools, including after-school child care, bus transportation and additional funding.

Given the magnitude of these decisions, coverage should reflect the full scope of the district’s proposals.

Sheila Bruce
San Jose

Valley Water passed on better choice for CEO

Re: “Accuser chastises board over Callender” (Page A1, March 12).

To think Felicia Marcus, the former chairwoman of the State Water Resources Control Board and former regional administrator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, could have been CEO of the Santa Clara Valley Water District is so sad and wasteful on so many points.
Its board of directors hired a far less qualified pro-Pacheco Reservoir insider. They should be held accountable and answerable for their lapses of judgment and the financial burden they passed onto their constituents, which was caused by their partisan decision-making.

This rises to a case that should draw the attention of the Santa Clara County grand jury.

Rita Norton
Los Gatos

It’s time we had preferential voting

With so many Democrats fairly evenly splitting the vote, we are very possibly on the cusp of having most voters prefer a Democrat and having to select one of two Republicans for governor.

It does not have to be like this.

First-past-the-post voting (the old way) was bad, but jungle primaries are far worse. We have them thanks to the ex-Gov. Schwarzenegger’s ballot initiative. Ranked choice voting is far, far better. Sadly, it’s hard to score and subject to voter confusion. Better still is “5-star voting,” where voters rank candidates on a 1 to 5 scale. It’s easier to score and easier to understand.

Either of these is better than Democrats having to select between two Republicans.

Bruce Korb
Santa Cruz

SAVE America Act would impose voting obstacles

Re: “Thune says Senate to consider voting bill but pushes back on demands seeking ‘talking filibuster’” (Page A4, March 11).

The recently House-passed Safeguard American Voters Eligibility (SAVE America Act) is being considered for a vote in the Senate. While the act aims to ensure that only eligible citizens can register and vote in federal elections — a goal both major parties support — it requires documentary proof of citizenship at registration and a photo ID at voting. Although instances of noncitizen registration and voting are rare, the legislation risks creating unnecessary obstacles for eligible voters.

Citizenship is already a requirement to vote, and evidence shows noncitizen voting is not a widespread issue. Many eligible citizens lack access to documentary proof of citizenship, meaning the act could inadvertently disenfranchise those who are fully eligible but unable to meet the new requirements. There are better, more cost-effective ways to verify citizenship, and these should place the responsibility on government agencies rather than individual voters.

Mohan Raj
San Jose

Officials must prioritize privacy of students

Re: “States sue the Trump administration to challenge policy requiring colleges to collect race data” (March 11).

The lawsuit against the Trump administration’s new education data requirements highlights an important concern: protecting student privacy while enforcing the law.

After the Supreme Court ended race-based admissions, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure universities comply with the ruling. Oversight matters. However, policies requiring colleges to submit extensive admissions data rapidly risk going too far, especially when that information could involve sensitive student records.

Universities should be transparent and accountable, but federal mandates must also respect the privacy of applicants and students. Large-scale data collection without clear safeguards could undermine trust between students and the institutions meant to support them.

As this lawsuit moves forward, policymakers should focus not only on enforcing the law but also on ensuring that student privacy remains protected.

Alexandra Diaz
San Jose