Local youth council opposes cannabis lounges

Santa Cruz County Friday Night Live Partnership Youth Council engages youth as leaders, advocates, and resources to influence positive changes in our community. In January, we wrote a letter to the Board of Supervisors to be read during public comment expressing our concerns over the changes to local cannabis policy to allow Cannabis Consumption Lounges. Our top concerns were around impaired driving, youth access and exposure, gaps in compliance, and normalization of cannabis use leading to a reduced perception of harm among youth.

We saw your (Jan. 29) Editorial expressing concerns about the increase in impaired driving related to consumption lounges and believe we share similar views on this issue. As such, we wrote letters and planned to speak during public comment to share our experiences and express our concerns to the Board of Supervisors.

Email the Board of Supervisors at BoardOfSupervisors@santacruzcountyca.gov.

— Maggie McGonigle on behalf of the SCCFNLP Youth Council, Santa Cruz

Keeley column on tax fails to answer key questions

Mayor Fred Keeley’s continuing push (Sentinel, Mayor’s Message, March 9) for a ballot measure that will somehow increase the amount of affordable housing still fails to answer some key questions. On what exactly will this money be spent? What would these affordable housing projects actually look like, and where would they be built?

The projected $5 million per year in revenue won’t go very far toward acquiring land, nor will it be enough to cover the design, permitting, site preparation, material and labor costs, or ongoing management for such projects.

So what does he intend to do with this money? Hire consultants to kick the idea around for years before a shovel ever meets the ground while the money piles up somewhere with little or no accountability?

And unless “affordable” actually means “free,” it’s doubtful that any such project will reduce the numbers of people living on the streets.

It’s pretty naive to think that some poor soul living out of a shopping cart could ever afford to pay even the smallest share of their monthly rent and utility costs.

— Jim Sklenar, Santa Cruz

Seeking answers on new buildings’ occupancy

We are in favor of most of the new buildings, but we want to see the occupancy of the new buildings to know that the developers and city are living up to their promises in building units.

How many units are rented to low income, etc.? Seems that if the city is helping people in need they would be happy to tell us.

— David and Jan Mintz, Santa Cruz

Op-ed advocating for rail lacked common sense

Jim Weller (Guest Commentary, March 9) does a tidy job of pea-picking the Sentinel’s recent Editorial on passenger rail. Unfortunately, he gets carried away with his rhetoric, leaving the realm of everyday common sense.

How many people will actually ride this train? SMART in Sonoma-Marin has 45 miles of track and about 3,500 passengers weekdays. In Santa Cruz with a third of their population, will 1,200 passengers be worth the sales tax and taxpayer subsidy (SMART reports $39/boarding)? When 230,000 vehicles travel Highway 1 every day, how many fewer vehicles will make this project worth it? OK, in 50 years our population will double — so 2.500 riders?

Here’s something else Weller blows by: Possible funding sources are not funding (actually) awarded as we have learned recently.

How would our 20 track miles and 1,200 passengers for a billion dollars compare to far more populous counties?

And by the way, how’s that state (high-speed) rail project going?

There’s nit-picking, and then there’s common sense. It’s too much money for too few riders — high-falutin’ language can’t fix that.

— Bill Cook, Santa Cruz

Why use prudence on spending taxpayer dollars?

As a life-long Democrat, I’m OK with my tax money being spent on waste, fraud and abuse.

The last things I want from elected officials are prudence and common sense.

— Steven Ward, Santa Cruz