Letters for May 9, 2019

Re: “Don’t get schooled” by Foon Rhee (Editor’s note, April 25):

I’m not looking forward to the new Kaiser Permanente medical center in the railyards. Yes, it will be convenient for those working and living downtown.

But for those who don’t, it will be a major challenge to get there. Imagine when all the staff, patients and visitors currently using the Morse Avenue hospital will be joining the commutes on I-80 and I-5, then trying to navigate unfamiliar one-way streets into the railyards and find parking (which will never be enough). And if the soccer stadium is built, traffic will be even worse during matches. And don’t forget all the planned Natomas development that will add traffic to I-5. I just don’t get your enthusiasm for the hospital site.

Paul Briscoe

Sacramento / via email

More school details

Re: “Don’t get schooled” by Foon Rhee (Editor’s note, April 25):

I love a lot of SN&R’s coverage of complex issues. Thank you for alerting me to the importance and need of a school at the railyards. However, I feel an even better story would be going beyond the idea and covering the actual step-by-step process of building the school, especially considering all the dynamics at play, some of which you mention.

School me in how schools like this do or do not get built in our city. I promise you, I’ll keep reading.

Michael Saeltzer

Sacramento / via email

Enriching the few

Re: “Get rid of ‘weed deserts’” by Ngaio Bealum (Capital Cannabis, April 18):

So you talk about the will of the voters. Doesn’t that will of the voters include all of Prop. 64? Or just the part that is going to enrich a very small fraction—the big box retailers. That’s what you’re saying here.

What about all those that did get shut out because of their county’s rejection of Prop. 64? This includes all the previous mom-and-pop shops that got shut out because these counties suffer from a NIMBY syndrome; and those counties that allow cannabis that made it cost prohibitive and secretly selective whom gets to participate in the business end of Prop. 64.

This bill’s only purpose is to enrich the very few and to expand the state’s revenue at the expense of the vast majority. This bill’s sole purpose is to continue killing the competition at the business end.

Parchesbi Patel

Chico / via email

What about mansion?

Re: “Watching a tower rise” by Foon Rhee (Editor’s note, May 2):

I saw the article today about the Natural Resources building under construction near 7th and 8th and P streets. A year or so ago there was a movement to save the Heilbron mansion located at the site of the new construction. As I recall the state agreed to save the mansion. But there was no mention of it in the story.

What is the status of saving the mansion? It is an incredibly beautiful building that should not be destroyed.

Craig McCulloch

Sacramento / via email

Editor’s note: The historic Heilbron house will remain on a corner of the site, and the state is making some exterior improvements.