Addis bill addresses antisemitism in schools

When Jewish students and parents complain about the rise of antisemitism in our schools and propose legislation to combat anti-Jewish bigotry, they are met with educators condemning antisemitism, but opposing legislation to combat antisemitism.

Such is the case of AB 715 co-authored by Dawn Addis who represents part of Santa Cruz County. The bill proposes to “Strengthen protections against discrimination, including antisemitism, in K-12 education, including protections against instruction and activity that promotes discrimination.”

Teachers’ unions and others object to the bill claiming that it infringes on free speech. Teachers should not be free to espouse their own biases in class. Their jobs are to educate, not indoctrinate.

In California we would not tolerate a teacher promoting homophobic beliefs in the classroom, but for the opponents of AB 715, anti-Jewish speech is acceptable. AB 715 seeks to eliminate this double standard. By their opposition to this legislation, the California Teachers Association has made it clear that they support the rights of their members to promote antisemitism over the rights of Jewish students to have a safe place to learn.

— Gil Stein, Aptos

Bike safety: Cyclists also need to follow the law

California also has a law that requires (not always) bicycles to ride to the far right of the lane, whether it’s the traffic lane if a bike lane doesn’t exist, or, the bike lane itself. If bicyclists would follow these laws, maybe there wouldn’t be the “close calls” as a July 3 letter writer says.

The same laws for right of way, signaling, etc. are required for both cyclists and autos, especially at intersections and traffic lights/signs. Darting in and out of traffic, riding in crosswalks and/or sidewalks is mostly prohibited, but I see many cyclists do just that. I also see cyclists dodge pedestrians that may be “impeding” their way. Cyclists don’t own the right-of-way or road, and neither do motor vehicles. It’s a privilege, not right.

I’m all for autos, cyclists, pedestrians, etc. being safe, but singling out autos as the fault is not correct.

— Glenn DiOrio, Aptos

Need to enforce safety rules with e-bikes

I walk daily in Arana Gulch, crossing over from the Frederick Street side on the bridge near the big church. The bridge is fairly narrow and provides little room to move out of the way of the motorized bikes, which are traveling at seemingly increasing speeds as people rush to get to their next appointment or school. The all-weather path is not very wide either.

Earlier this month I was walking on the path and decided to step over to the right onto the dirt, as their was so much traffic. Without so much as a “watch out” or a ring of a bell, a young person zoomed by me on my right, almost hitting me at a high rate of speed. Within minutes, another rider raced by also at the speed of a car! I called the non-emergency police line to report this and to suggest a stake out and they replied that until a crime takes place they can do nothing.

Someone is going to get hurt or worse if this continues. There needs to be a system to enforce safety rules in areas where pedestrians and bicycles must share the road.

— Anina Van Alstine, Santa Cruz

Accusation against RTC repeated incorrect notions

In the July 2 Sentinel (“Mobile home parks predated RTC’s purchase”), a letter writer repeated several mistaken notions about the public railroad corridor.

It is incorrect that the mobile homes “were all placed when this corridor was privately owned.” Union Pacific Railroad, which sold the corridor to the RTC in 2012, is a quasi-public entity. The “legal concept of adverse possession” doesn’t apply to railroads (California Civil Code § 1007).

It is untrue that “the mobile home park operated outside the fence erected by (Union Pacific) with no encroachment issues ever noted.” Union Pacific didn’t build the fencing. It was known that encroaching fences existed. Encroachments are not a legal issue for railroads, and they may be removed summarily.

It is untrue that “the RTC’s purchase was … without even property line surveys.” No surveys were necessary because the boundary has been monumented on the ground for decades. It was surveyed for the former owner of the mobile home park in July 1986.

The accusation of negligence against the RTC is frankly reprehensible.

— Jim Weller, Capitola