Successful ranching in Pt. Reyes requires more

Food security is one of the arguments for the preservation of ranching in Point Reyes National Seashore. But turning raw milk and live cattle into food involves an entire supply chain with many component processes, some distant from Marin.

For the argument to be valid, the supply chain would have to be “reshored” into Marin and Sonoma counties. If that is not happening, the argument is specious.

— Chet Seligman, Point Reyes Station

Recall is not the right path for Fairfax residents

The current effort to recall two women from the Fairfax Town Council is curious (“Fairfax recall effort gets advice of expert,” April 13). I think it is an insult to democracy. There is no need to recall Mayor Lisel Blash or Vice Mayor Stephanie Hellman. They have been doing the job they were elected to do. Recalls should only be undertaken when there is evidence of criminal activity or malfeasance.

In some cases, as in Washington state, recalls are prohibited for political purposes or “policy choices that some people just don’t like or for managerial mistakes,” according to a “legal tips” article posted on the University of Washington School of Law website. It posits that recalls should be limited to clear and “substantial wrongful conduct that affects or interferes with the performance of public duty.”

While California does not require specific grounds, the recall has often been used by those who simply disagree over a single issue or by those who lost an election. In any case, a recall without clear grounds or violation of duty simply deprives the voters who elected the officials being recalled of their right to have won their election.

It resets the election process (usually in an expensive manner) and voters in one election see their votes canceled. Doing that creates conditions where the democratic process is undermined and promotes repeated recalls and reelection cycles. I think it leads to a government conducted not by elected officials but appointed bureaucrats.

I urge people to not sign the petition, to go to council meetings (or watch them online) and be involved.

— Niccolo Caldararo, Fairfax

State retirement systems should divest from Tesla

The two largest public retirement systems in California together own more than 9 million shares of Tesla stock. CalPERS is the California Public Employees Retirement System, and CalSTRS is the California State Teachers Retirement System.

As of Dec. 31 (the most recent data available), CalPERS owned about 4.8 million shares and CalSTRS owned about 4.5 million shares. CalPERS is the largest public pension fund in the country, and CalSTRS is the largest educator-only pension fund in the world. Combined, they are the 28th-largest owner of Tesla stock in the universe.

I think it is outrageous that they continue to hold Tesla stock after CEO Elon Musk appeared to reveal his contempt for career civil servants and educators via cuts made through his role as the president’s “special government employee” in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency.

These retirement systems are in position to do something meaningful and effective. They have owned these stocks for years so they would most likely realize a gain if sold quickly. Tesla stock is too volatile to belong in these pension portfolios anyway.

It is a slap in the face of civil servants and educators to invest in a company whose CEO appears to be so scornful of the work they do. I urge all to contact the CalPERS and CalSTRS boards, their CEOs, Assemblymember Damon Connolly and state Sen. Mike McGuire. All should demand that they divest from Tesla.

— Mary Jo Walker, San Rafael

Tesla profits have real impact on Musk directly

I have seen several recently published letters saying, essentially, that the people targeting Tesla dealers (and drivers of new Teslas) are behaving inappropriately in trying to have their voices heard about CEO Elon Musk and his activities on behalf of President Donald Trump.

While it is true that the president’s “special government employee” in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency does not own the company outright, the latest data available is that Musk currently owns 12.8% of that company. He holds 410 million shares, now valued at over $100 billion. That is nearly a third of his estimated total holdings of $345 billion.

His stake in Tesla is not insignificant — even for the richest man in the world. For reference, he is the CEO of Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink and the Boring Company.

From my perspective, the enraged members of the public have no other means of getting their reactions to Musk known to him — in a way that can actually damage the brand and its sales and, ergo, his earnings.

For the record, I appreciate drivers of older Teslas whose bumper stickers disavow Musk.

I am prone to believe that those who invest in new ones at this time, support the Trump-Musk efforts to dismantle the federal government. Perhaps that is unfair, but the assumption seems reasonable to me and, apparently, to many others.

— David Reinstein, San Anselmo

Trade war could have disastrous consequences

With his tariff plan, I think President Donald Trump has put in place the variables for an American and global financial meltdown quite different from the one that was caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, which shocked supply chains, or the excesses of leverage and derivatives that triggered “the Great Recession” from 2007-09.

This tariff-generated trade war that triggered the stock-and-bond market debacle is now underway. It was completely avoidable. It is the work of a president that I believe desires to impose pure unadulterated power upon the global marketplace. He is demanding obeisance and obsequiousness from trading partners while threatening a global loss of consumer demand and inventory investment. I think it will eventually lead to the shuttering of factories throughout the world and likely do damage to many American industries, particularly the agricultural belt dependent on exports to China.

This trade war imposed on the world by the United States does not only undermine consumer confidence but threatens a double-pronged weakness of the government bond market and the U.S. dollar. Distaste for our trade policies can easily trigger distaste for our bonds, causing higher rates to fund our debt. These abnormally high tariffs threaten to undermine our buying power at the same time that they risk recession inducing job losses.

This loss of buying power as a result of the weakening dollar occurs as pensions and retirement accounts are being whipsawed. I believe that the volatile stock market reflects the difficulty of adopting a new profitability paradigm based on massive tariffs and the capriciousness of the president.

The Federal Reserve will be hamstrung from cutting interest rates to avoid recession because of tariff inducing inflation concerns.

Trump has designated his tariff policy as “Liberation Day.” I see it as an historic threat to global economic security.

— Bruce Farrell Rosen, San Francisco

Officials must fight for return of legal US resident

A Salvadoran citizen living legally in the U.S. was sent to prison in El Salvador by our Homeland Security Department without a hearing, without having committed a crime and without being charged with a crime (“US judge presses Trump administration on its refusal to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia,” April 16).

Our government acknowledges that this was a mistake but will not bring him back. I think we have to speak out on this issue or we will be no different than the silent German population when the Nazis and Adolf Hitler did their illegal acts. I am incensed that we are not hearing from all members of Congress on this serious attack on our democracy.

To do nothing is to kill the rule of law. Who will be next?

— Jim Libien, San Rafael