Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.
City officials are
right to tackle blight
Re: “Officials seek receivership for downtown lot” (Page A1, Sept. 12).
The San Jose Chamber of Commerce fully supports the city’s efforts to address the blighted properties at North Fourth and East St. John streets.
Tackling long-standing blighted properties like these is critical for improving the safety and appeal of our downtown for residents, businesses and economic development. Removing debris, securing the site and holding absentee property owners accountable sends a strong message that San Jose is serious about creating a thriving and safe downtown for all.
We look forward to seeing the positive impact this action will have on the surrounding community and working with the city to bolster efforts to address blight.
Leah Toeniskoetter
President & CEO, San Jose Chamber of Commerce
San Jose
Planning is key
to EV road trip
Re: “What I learned from my first EV road trip” (Aug. 30).
The author of the linked article did the road trip equivalent of picking up bike riding and then setting out on a century ride the next day. The outcome was 100% predictable.
Those of us who spend our careers trying to accelerate the electrification of transportation are well aware of the roadblocks. But when approached thoughtfully, the road trip should not be one of them.
John Higham
Mountain View
Advertising methodology
can’t sell Harris’ run
Re: “Harris turns to favorite foods in effort to show a more private side and connect with voters“(Page A4, Sep.9).
Back in the last century, I thought Joe Namath was a great football player, but I couldn’t care less what brand of toothpaste he used.
Now Democrats exploit popular advertising methodology on Harris’ behalf as she conflates food with politics. Harris is very successful at diverting attention from issues of her predecessor’s administration into a debate on character. Did McDonald’s and Doritos get money or have to pay to help endow her with character? Her sharing of her collard greens recipe might backfire.
It exacerbates my contempt of popular democracy as Harris stakes election chances on popular opinion, otherwise known as collective stupidity.
Fred Gutmann
Cupertino
Standing up to Trump
will benefit nation
Donald Trump’s poor debate performance against Kamala Harris was illuminating.
As a malignant narcissist and abuser, Trump expects to have his ego inflated and receive praise for mediocrity while being protected from the consequences of his own actions. The threats for not feeding his ego are both express and implied, such that our elections are under constant threat if they do not placate him. Those who enable him and minimize his failings represent millions of voters and far too many journalists and politicians who are conditioned to kowtow to narcissists and abusers, against all our best interests.
Whether these people be presidents, CEOs, members of Congress or middle managers, America would be far healthier if it stood up to them instead of appeasing them. Voting for Harris and a Democratic Congress would be a big step in the right direction.
Mathew Clark
Campbell
Swift endorsement
came with civics lesson
This election will be so close that a small number of votes might determine the winner. So every vote is crucial.
At 82, I am not a devotee of Taylor Swift, although I admire her popularity and her ability to influence her fans. But I was quite impressed by her Instagram statement endorsing Kamala Harris for president. Why? Because her endorsement was accompanied by a model lesson in civic responsibility. She emphasized not only the importance of voting but also explained the need to register in order to vote. Her post redirected her followers to vote.gov, the official U.S. voter registration website.
Harris is having a difficult time with younger voters. Perhaps Swift’s endorsement can influence some of her followers who might not have planned to vote. And even if that reaches just a few prospective Swifties, it might be just enough to affect the outcome.
Thank you, Taylor.
Lorraine D’Ambruoso
San Jose
Changes needed after
disappointing debate
Related Articles
Letters: Pleasanton schools | Preserve Prop. 12 | Widespread bombing
Letters: Redirect support | A strong case | Trump’s deceit | Ill prepared | Misusing genocide
Letters: Measure DD | Smoke, mirrors | Popular vote | Project 2025
Letters: Gun control | Paying the cost | Electoral College | Party for good | Racial divisions | Fewer abortions
Letters: Prop. 36 | Lafayette Council | Nuclear weapons | Biden/Harris triumphs
Regardless of which candidate you favor, Tuesday night’s debate was an utter embarrassment and gave us little, if any, real insight as to how either candidate plans to attack the really serious problems facing our country.
In the end, it felt more like a playground dodgeball game and mudslinging contest laced with TV campaign snippets. Even more embarrassing, perhaps, was the abhorrent job the ABC moderators did in not controlling the debate nor forcing the candidates to provide direct answers to important questions.
If there’s a second debate without material format changes, it’s highly unlikely I’ll watch — it’s not worth my time.
Nick Cochran
San Jose
