CEQA lawsuit not to blame for Wharf end collapse

The Sentinel Editorial Board once again prints the false charge that the CEQA lawsuit against the Wharf Master Plan contributed to the collapse of the wharf’s end by “stalling needed maintenance and repairs” (As We See It, July 2).

This accusation from “some critics” as the Sentinel put it, is simply not true. The facts do not support the accusation. The community group that filed the lawsuit expressly asked Judge Paul Burdick to allow all maintenance and wharf repairs to continue uninterrupted during the lawsuit. That request was granted, is codified in the writ, is publicly available and easily verified.

The city knew for a decade that the pilings at the wharf’s end needed replacing. The reason for the collapse, whether contractor mistake or piling failure or both will eventually come out in the investigative report. In the meantime, blaming the lawsuit to bolster anti-CEQA opinions is not only factually inaccurate but also generates hostility and threats to those involved in the lawsuit.

— Gillian Greensite, Santa Cruz

Bike safety: 3 feet law not being enforced

California has a law that requires three feet be allowed to cyclists by motorists. It’s not clear how many citations for this have been issued in our county, but most cyclists would think it is close to zero. My experience has been an increase in the number of drivers who think it’s appropriate to use their multi-thousand-pound vehicle to show me where they think I should be on the road. Other cyclists have experienced this too.

With the increase in e-bikes along with growth in regular bike use, it seems that more motorists are becoming frustrated with our presence. As a driver, one should not assume the ability to decide where a cyclist should be on the road. That decision is up to the cyclist and can depend on a variety of factors.

The fact that law enforcement has decided not to enforce the 3 feet law is compounding a problem that is only getting worse. Enforcement drives compliance.

— Bob Montague, Aptos

A fuller picture of Hamas and Gaza is needed

Sunday’s headline in the Sentinel was “Israeli strikes kill at least 72,” and the article gave details of the various locations. And the article included the usual line of “Israel says it only targets militants and blames civilian deaths on Hamas, accusing the militants of hiding among civilians in populated areas.” Incredibly sad, but that seemed like half the story.

I just happened to read in another newspaper the other half of the story: “Hamas leader and Oct. 7 mastermind Hakham Muhammad Issa Al-Issa was killed in a targeted airstrike” along with his family.

After organizing the attack that killed over a thousand civilians — children, grandparents, teens at a rock concert — this Hamas leader at home with his family was targeted and eliminated. Sad but not exactly senseless or wanton.

The Palestinian people deserve better, but Hamas has led them down a path of death and destruction. And perhaps the Sentinel can provide more thorough journalism to give a fuller picture of the dynamics of Gaza.

— Steve Miller, Santa Cruz

A more accurate estimate for spiraling ZEPRT costs

Jim Weller’s recent Guest Commentary on the cost of ZEPRT makes several glaring mistakes

The ZEPRT consultants used industry standards to calculate the costs. Ignoring a contingency for a project of this size is naive. The costs range from $4 billion to $5 billion after inflation by the projected start of construction in 2032, wiping out most of the contingency.

The estimates for annual operating costs after inflation range from $45 million to $60 million by 2040, the projected first year of service.

His calculations of the amount of sales tax to raise the necessary local matching funds is based on a 20% match but it was made clear at the RTC meeting that a more realistic match would be at least 30%.

Finally, he completely ignores the other side of the equation, ridership. The actual number of people riding the train, half the boardings, expressed as percentage of the population ranges from roughly 0.7% for the low estimate to 1.1% for the high estimate. Put another way, at least 98.9% of the population will NOT use the train.

— Peter Haworth, Soquel