Letters to the Editor |

California Journalism Protection Act: Letters

Columnist Larry Wilson informs of a secret deal in Sacramento (Aug. 25), which killed the California Journalism Protection Act (CJPA). CJPA protected local newspaper’s (such as this newspaper) from having their copyrighted content used freely by internet news sources — such as Google. Wilson reveals that the CJPA bill’s author, Buffy Wicks, D-Oakland, made a deal with Google to provide $15M and the state $30M to fund local newsrooms in lieu of having Google pay newspapers directly.

I agree with Mr. Wilson that this deal smells like all the other backroom deals made by Sacramento’s Democratic majority who allocate taxpayer dollars to fund projects better handled in the private domain. Why not let local newsrooms negotiate their own deals directly with Google? California taxpayers should not be subsidizing billion-dollar businesses like Google!

Note: we would not know about this if not the newspaper had not published the story … so it is vitally important to keep our newspapers viable.

— Oliver Watson, Orange

Proposition 4

Politicians and environmentalists want this “feedbag in the name of climate change” (Aug. 27). I fully concur we are to be good stewards of our environment, and we have only one environment to protect, but it’s more about money than environment.

Let me give you one example; if you truly want to help the environment and aid in ending climate change, stop building. Just stop building housing tracts, townhouses, concrete tilt-up warehouses, multi-story commercial buildings and retail centers that consume acres of land. These projects include massive amounts of materials, concrete, asphalt, wood products, metals, water supply, electricity, natural gas, just to name a few. Oh, that would kill the construction industry and stop lining the pockets of politicians, you say.

Well then, there are no climate change issues to be addressed, right?

— Glenn Waggoner Jr., Riverside

Harris: ‘a new way forward’

Harris announces a “new way forward” and “a chance to chart a new way” if elected. A new way would therefore repudiate the “old” Biden-Harris way. Has her politics turned upside down? Or is this just her congruent meaningless, say-anything political drivel?

— Steve Hawes, Sunland