Home System concept Marin IJ Readers Forum for January 10, 2022 – Marin Independent Journal

Marin IJ Readers Forum for January 10, 2022 – Marin Independent Journal

0


Be realistic about the pensions of retired teachers from Le Marin

I must have laughed when I read Mario Panichelli’s negative opinions on Marin County teacher benefits and pensions in his letter to the editor published on December 25. I taught at Marin for 35 years and have never received overtime, meal allowances, license bonuses, paid time off, paid holidays or start-up pay. At no time did I complain about what I was earning.

I really enjoyed teaching, and better because it’s exhausting. Panichelli did not mention that retired teachers, unlike administrators, do not receive any health benefits from their districts. They are also only eligible for the Social Security Minimum Distribution, regardless of how much they invest in the system, according to California law. The Marin Voice commentary by Fran Rozoff (“Protecting the Pensions of Mariners and Teachers,” November 16) was excellent. He resists criticism from Panichelli.

– Philip Hicks, San Anselme

Point Reyes ranch defense missed big picture

In her recent Marin Voice in Ranch Defense for Point Reyes National Seashore (“Attacks on Point Reyes Ignore Ranch Benefits”, December 20 “), Judy Teichman criticizes the lawsuit” which led to the preparation of a statement full environmental impact. “

This statement is puzzling. The preparation of an environmental impact statement should be standard practice for assessing the environmental risks of proposed actions. From my perspective, the lawsuit only reminded the National Park Service of that responsibility. In fact, we should all be thankful because it prompted the National Park Service to conduct long-neglected analyzes and make them available to agency leaders and the public.

For example, Point Reyes officials had not assessed the impact of ranching on water quality until the public raised the issue in their comments on the draft study. impact. This resulted in an annex in the final statement documenting very high concentrations of bacteria that pose a risk to human health.

Since this information was not provided in the draft impact study, the public did not have the opportunity to comment on or react to it. Hopefully, park officials will accept responsibility and eliminate the dumping of livestock dung into the creeks and estuaries of Point Reyes.

As for Teichman’s comment on the use of science, park officials used “solid science.” According to their own analysis, the alternative chosen to expand ranching would continue to degrade not only water but also air and soil quality. Additionally, the presence of ranches prevents most visitors from fully enjoying the panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean that are only accessible by navigating barbed wire and electric fences that surround 30% of the park leased to cattle operators. and dairy products.

Visitors to Point Reyes are a huge boon to the local economy – we should be encouraging more of them to visit what Teichman correctly calls “our beloved park”.

– Elizabeth Dodge, Berkeley

The proposed system for the solar roof is not suitable

I’m looking at the California Public Utilities Commission’s proposal to impose a monthly charge (aka tax) on solar panel ownership (“California Proposes Lower Incentives for Rooftop Solar Power,” December 14).

This seems to be developed as a way to make the cost of maintaining the electrical distribution system more equitable. The concept is that by producing their own electricity, homeowners are not paying their fair share of the costs of the electricity distribution system.

What does a new pay distribution system look like? The old system pays according to electricity consumption. Obviously, this is not giving the utilities enough money. Should electricity distribution be a publicly funded infrastructure service funded by the general fund? Or should we continue down this path and charge consumers for conservation efforts as well?

A monthly utility charge for every energy efficient window and door comes to mind. Since some newer EVs have outlets that can power a home, should care home owners pay a monthly payment as well?

The system may not be perfect. But this new tax / fee does not seem like the right solution.

– August Lee Kleinecke, Mill Valley