Letters for November 27, 2008

Letter of the week
Commies to the rescue!

Re “Bailouts for everyone!” by R.V. Scheide (SN&R Race to the Bottom, November 13):

In order to get a bailout under the new Marxist communist regime, you’ll either have to print leftist dogma, sleep with the communist elite or produce enough votes to keep the Marxist regime in power. Like most of the news media, The [Sacramento] Bee and SN&R only print leftist propaganda, so no doubt there should be a bailout in your future. Any alternative news source that dares question the leftist policies of the new Marxist communist regime will be silenced and shut down.

Randi Edison
via e-mail

Who’s next?

Re “An uncivil proposition” by Kel Munger (SN&R Frontlines, November 20):

The slippery slope occurs when an unpopular minority is bullied into the loss of a civil good and unequal standing as citizens by majority vote. This is indeed a fundamental change and ought to be regarded as a revision and not an amendment.

If Proposition 8 is allowed to stand, who’s next? Will a majority vote by initiative allow blacks to be legitimately redlined into “separate but equal” electoral, economic or social zones? Will Jews be required by a majority to don yellow identification stars because a majority finds that we, for whatever warped perception, have too much money? Will the disabled be compelled to second-class work status because [Americans with Disabilities Act] requirements are too costly to corporations? Who’s next on the right’s hate list?

The Supremes, in calling for the briefing on the three state constitutional questions, only inferentially offered Prop. 8 opponents the opportunity to challenge Prop. 8’s violations of federal principles, which any state measure must adhere to. It is this issue that exposes the measure’s most fragile vulnerabilities in its massive equal-protection offense, as well as its basis in religion in violation of long-established separation doctrines.

The American Civil Liberties Union’s Anthony Romero, the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ Kate Kendell and Lambda Legal’s Evan Wolfson, all of whom have taken up this challenge, are well-aware of the links between the ruling’s state inferences and the embedded constitutional error of Prop. 8’s proponents, [as well as] the precedents that establish the measure’s folly.

It may take some time, but Prop. 8 will be defeated.

Alex Berg

Prop. 8 should be a nonissue

Re “An uncivil proposition” by Kel Munger (SN&R Frontlines, November 20):

Prop. 8 is about an issue that should not be an issue. It’s about marriage, which last I checked, was a religious sacrament. Please correct me if separation of church and state has changed.

What religion people choose and what they do at their religion of choice is not anyone’s business but their own. Go get married in your church to whomever or whatever you choose, but don’t put it up for public vote [and] then call anyone a “h8r” when their opinions don’t mirror your own. Let those without sin toss the first stone.

Robert Muñoz

He wants the other list

Re “The h(8) list” (SN&R Snog, November 13):

Now that the Yes on 8 sponsors have been publicized, I’d like to know who were the sponsors of the No on 8 campaign. I’d like to know so I can boycott their products. Oh, yes, thanks for publicizing the sponsors of Prop. 8. They are the ones I’ll be supporting.

Brian Smith

Inflammatory story

Re “Last gasps?” by Seth Sandronsky (SN&R Frontlines, November 13):

The article was inflammatory and inaccurate. Wilma Cabral was not authorized to speak for the residents of Riverview Plaza and other residents were not interviewed for [Seth] Sandronsky’s article.

Many residents have lived at Riverview Plaza for years without experiencing allergies or breathing problems. Clearly, Sandronsky did not investigate the cause of death of the people mentioned in the article. Residents have succumbed due to lung cancer caused by employment in the asbestos industry. They have died from many diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, pancreatic cancer and old age. The youngest resident of the building is 62; the oldest resident is 102.

Sandronsky did not mention that Cabral moved to Riverview Plaza from another Sacramento apartment building that she claimed was infested with mold. Mold seems to follow Cabral like a dark cloud. Cabral, a “retired cocktail server,” was exposed to a lifetime of secondhand smoke in the workplace. Would her occupation not factor into her health issues?

Cabral’s apartment tested negative for mold. The bottom line is financial—she wants to bully the housing authority into giving her a [Housing Choice Voucher], several months free rent and a free ride out of downtown.

Jill T. Hurley

Editor’s note: Sandronsky interviewed other tenants of the Riverview Plaza for this story; they asked to remain anonymous. He was aware that Cabral reported a mold problem at her last residence but did not include this in the story since she has lived at Riverview for nine years.

‘Infrastructure problems’ mean trouble

Re “Last gasps?” by Seth Sandronsky (SN&R Frontlines, November 13):

After the article in SN&R was published, Ms. Cabral called to inform me that she has been receiving calls from people in the building who are experiencing similar symptoms to hers. In over 10 years, my experience has been that many people living or working in unhealthy buildings are scared or intimidated enough to stay out of the situation, knowing full well that they are suffering with ailments influenced by their exposures within these structures. According to Ms. Cabral, emergency services are called several times a month, and in fact, she had to call them for one of her neighbors a few weeks ago.

The public would have been informed of all of what has been occurring with this building over a year ago had Ms. Cabral’s two presentations not been purposely extracted [or] obstructed from public viewing after she addressed Mayor [Heather] Fargo and the Sacramento City Council specifically on the unhealthy conditions of this building.

The facts are that this building has been facing ongoing infrastructure problems with the pool flooding; constant water-intrusion problems; mold infestations and diesel, auto and soot emissions; and high humidity levels that are being worked on as I am writing this response. [The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency’s assistant director] Nick Chhotu told me personally during our meeting in Ms. Cabral’s apartment, with the building manager and Ms. Cabral standing right there, that “this building has had infrastructure problems over the years.”

Let’s be totally realistic here: “Infrastructure” means within the building, and infrastructure problems of those mentioned in this response would and do adversely affect the health of people and contribute to the unhealthy conditions of apartment units in the building, especially over a five- to seven-year period. I suggest that you do not try this at home!

Douglas R. Haney
environmental consultant representing Wilma Cabral


In “An uncivil proposition” by Kel Munger (SN&R Frontlines, November 20), the percentage by which Prop. 8 passed was stated incorrectly. The correct percentage of the vote was 52 percent in favor with 48 percent opposed, for a difference of four points. We regret the error. This has been corrected online.