Proud to be on Rotkin’s ‘dirty dozen’ list of writers

I am engaged in my government and in my community.

Having written maybe three letters and one Guest Commentary published by the Sentinel in the past two years on the subject of the rail corridor, I am proud to be one of Mike Rotkin’s dirty dozen “negative letters” writers (Guest Commentary, March 7, rebutting March 5 Sentinel Editorial about plans for passenger rail).

Everyone who believes in our Democracy should be greatly troubled with Rotkin’s comment suggesting the Sentinel allow “each of the 12 or so opponents who write multiple letters to the paper one letter on this topic.” His adamant prediction (“Soon the letters would stop.”) is even more troubling. And shocking.

Rotkin’s dark comments can be seen in only one light: firstly, diminishment of letters because he disagrees with their content; and secondly, as bald-faced censorship. Yes, censorship.

I am not requesting that Mike Rotkin, himself a prolific letter writer and author of many guest commentaries in the Sentinel and other news media, be censored. Instead, I am requesting an unequivocal apology from Mike Rotkin. On these pages.

— Jean Brocklebank, Live Oak

Rotkin’s thin argument in favor of train plans

Good to hear from Mike Rotkin again (Guest Commentary, March 7). He is a great debater, a lesson I learned during our challenge to Santa Cruz’s proposal for desalination. I think I lost my battle with him but we won the war. Similarly, I don’t think he is all that confident in his train argument.

While he makes solid points he resorts to school yard tactics, “Hey they keep disagreeing with me, tell them to be quiet,” to close his argument. There are lots of us that disagree with the train and we appreciate the effort our letter writers put out.

— Jim Bentley, Santa Cruz

Train: Voters wanted accountability on spending

Mr. Rotkin references our community as “negative letters” naysayers.

However, the Sentinel Editorial Board reported RTC’s delay in releasing its conceptual report because RTC needs time for additional engineering work and community engagement.

Voters approved the Measure D transportation sales tax to ensure accountability, transparency and have public oversight of ALL its funds collected and allocated. Removing senior mobile homes; revenue loss for local businesses; inability to support both a rail line and bike path on Capitola’s trestle; trail and road alignment difficulties; lack of train-horn study analysis; hazardous bluffs; to state and federal funding obstacles were not part of this equation. Nor throwing funds at a zero-emission train project in hope commuters jump out of their vehicles and start riding a Disney-style monorail.

RTC funds are meant to fix potholes and make bridge repairs, improve flood zone areas to improving street to Highway 1 traffic flow and not to continuously bleed public funds — like their whale bridge-to-nowhere project, or needing $12-$14 million to complete environmental assessments — or worse, demanding voters pass another tax measure.

— Jeff Staben, Soquel

Rail investments needed for stable climate future

What could be more costly to the people of Santa Cruz County than a destabilized climate future? Consider the cost of a San Lorenzo River megaflood. Or, of a protracted drought, a major wildfire, a crop-baking extreme heatwave, sea level rise and the related social upheaval.

So when the Sentinel opines (March 5) that a climate-friendly future passenger rail service between Santa Cruz and Watsonville looks infeasible due to the foundational investment needed, I want to ask, infeasible compared to what?

Our present car-oriented transportation system brings yet-greater costs, including to climate. My “infeasible” label goes to growing our overreliance on energy-intensive, resource-intensive, polluting and beastly-expensive automobiles for travel across the county, understanding that costly Highway 1 expansion gets followed by renewed, induced car congestion.

We deserve a choice. Passenger rail brings the prospect of far lower energy demand and carbon emissions per passenger mile and could form the spine of a flourishing network of car-free travel options, as envisioned on the CoastConnect.org website.

— Jack Nelson, Santa Cruz