Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for Oct. 3, 2022

‘Shine’ suicide prevention event hit the right note

As a Marin Suicide Prevention Collaborative volunteer, I recently attended a community event that was truly special. It was called “Shine.” It was created to shine a light on teen mental health and suicide prevention. I am an “angel mom” who lost a teen to suicide. As such, I am filled with gratitude for the awareness the Shine event brings.

Marin has a serious problem with suicide and today’s pressures put our young ones at a heightened risk. Even though the event was designed to bring awareness to teen suicide, Shine was fun-filled, inspirational and hopeful. It brought the community together in a celebratory way that built a sense of us all being in this together.

This is how we create change in the world and make it a better and safer place for the next generation. We all must shine the light on these issues. Know the signs, educate yourself and others, and help end stigma by talking openly about your own struggles. No one should ever feel alone or afraid to ask for help.

I want to share my deepest gratitude to Rosina Caleca, my dear friend and “angel mom” sister, as well as all her “Earth angels” who made the event possible. I want to give special thanks to the Elks Club for the beautiful venue

— Kate Ruehle, Novato

Before dismissing plan, let process take place

I am baffled by the alarmist tone of the recent Marin Voice piece by John McCauley and Ken Wachtel (“Engine No. 9 project would ruin Mill Valley’s Depot Plaza,” Sept. 24). For two months last year, a full-scale model of No. 9 was on display in Mill Valley and was welcomed by residents of all ages, visitors and local business owners.

I realize that “the devil is in the details” and the community has not yet seen a complete design proposal for the display. I am saddened that the authors haven’t given the process a chance.

The Friends of No. 9 group has hired RHAA, a nationally acclaimed Mill Valley landscape architecture firm, to create a design that reflects the community’s wishes for the expanded plaza. Most likely there will be two hearings with the Parks and Recreation Commission and hearings with the City Council. All will be opportunities for the proposal to be shown and for the public to weigh in.

Many community members have poured their hearts and souls into the restoration and finding a home for Engine No. 9. Let’s see their proposal and let the process take place.

— Clifford Waldeck, Mill Valley

PG&E should be forced to take all renewable energy

I am writing about the California Public Utilities Commission’s proposal to reduce the benefits of rooftop solar panels for homeowners.

I do not see how restricting those who can generate solar energy, and favoring large corporate, commercial and community producers over individual homeowners, will address socio-economic issues. The financial benefits from solar in those cases will simply flow into the pockets of their investors and shareholders — not to the poor or middle-income ratepayers. The higher electricity bills we all face are more likely due to the continuing escalation of natural gas prices reported in the media and payouts for wildfire damages and pipeline explosions.

Just because everyone cannot participate in rooftop solar, or (as others argue) buy an electric car, doesn’t mean that we should not encourage and move forward with these technologies that we need to fight climate change, air pollution and work toward energy independence. Those without a house facing the right direction or are unable to afford a whole solar system should be able to buy solar panel space in a cooperative solar farm. They should receive credits toward their bills.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. should be forced to take all the renewable energy people can produce at fair, competitive rates and equal subsidies. History has shown they will not push forward in earnest on their own.

In a recently published Marin Voice commentary (“CPUC plan is an overdue correction for rooftop solar energy,” Sept. 16) author Robert Archer’s cost study on installations is perhaps incomplete. According to a U.S. government study that goes deeper than his (nrel.gov), the difference in installation cost is due more to the “soft costs” relating to the contractor time, retail markups, permitting and job overhead. The homeowner is responsible for those issues.

— Keith Granger, San Rafael