Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for May 1, 2024

Marinwood neighbor welcomes housing plan

My husband and I are delighted to hear that, at long last, a developer has stepped forward to build housing and other amenities at Marinwood Plaza (“Marinwood tract proposed for 125-home project,” April 23).

The shopping center has been semi-derelict for many years. We welcome the addition of affordable housing for the important workers in our community such as teachers, caregivers, nurses, landscapers, baristas and many more.

Almost 20 years ago, we were actively involved with planning for the Bridge Housing development. Interestingly, it would have been smaller with more amenities than this new proposal (since the proposal came before the recent state housing mandates). It was a beautifully designed project. It would have been fully integrated into our Marinwood-Lucas Valley community by now — had not a few highly vocal neighbors shut it down.

We’re grateful that Marinwood Market opened despite the poor state of the site and are confident that their business will more than thrive with a beautiful new center and neighbors. The addition of a cafe will be enjoyed by all of us who live nearby. Perhaps we will no longer need to drive to Ignacio for a pleasant shopping and dining experience.

We’re confident that environmental cleanup issues and traffic concerns will be dealt with and we look forward to seeing the design and other plans.

— Kathleen Gaines, Marinwood

Rent control properly limited in San Anselmo

I am thrilled that the San Anselmo Town Council passed a fair rent-control ordinance to helps stabilize rents and prevent housing insecurity, displacement and homelessness (“San Anselmo adopts rent control amid referendum effort,” April 14). San Anselmo joins over 30 other municipalities across California by adopting this common-sense policy to protect renters.

It was an inclusive policy development process. It is important to understand that the rent-control ordinance does not apply to all rental units in San Anselmo. It exempts all single-family homes, accessory dwelling units and duplexes (all properties mainly owned by “mom and pop” landlords). Rather, the ordinance applies to larger rental properties — often owned by corporations — with three or more units.

The ordinance is not designed to prevent landlords from making a profit. The ordinance will include an annual rent cap at 5% of the existing rent or 60% of the consumer price index (whichever is lower). Mom-and-pop landlords who own one or two units and who do not routinely issue major rent hikes (as we heard repeatedly through the public process) will not be impacted.

San Anselmo’s rent-cap ordinance is a sound, respectful and potentially lifesaving policy that benefits our entire community.

— Wendy Todd, San Rafael

Financial literacy tips can lead to important lessons

As one who regularly teaches financial education in California, I want to compliment the IJ for republishing the Los Angeles Times editorial about this important issue (“Financial literacy is important for teens to learn along with math and science,” April 23).

It is shocking how little people of any age know about the basics of how money works. Whenever I teach my class, often to people in their 20s and 30s, I ask how many have ever heard of a mutual fund or an ETF (exchange-traded fund). If any hands go up, and they rarely do, hardly anyone can actually tell me what either of those essential investment vehicles are and why they are so important.

The need for financial education is huge. Research shows that 70% of people say that financial matters are their most common cause of stress and 60% of households don’t even have three months of savings on hand to deal with emergencies.

I have found that people of any age are inspired to better manage their financial matters when they learn, for instance, a basic concept like compounding. When they apply that concept and invest, for example, just $100 per month in a mutual fund earning an average of 7% over a period of 30 years, they would generate more than $124,000 before taxes. That would be a nice little nest egg for most people to have.

It is for this and many other reasons, I firmly believe that by providing people with financial education they will be better able to enjoy a more secure financial future.

— Jeff Greendorfer, Novato

If Pt. Reyes is broke, it should kick ranchers out

The recent Marin Voice by Jerry Meral (“Lack of income is pushing Point Reyes National Seashore into disrepair,” April 25) made the case for instituting parking fees in the park to raise funds for needed maintenance.

I have a better, far more appropriate and effective way to raise millions of dollars for the park. It comes with the bonus of reducing park pollution, land degradation, water contamination, invasive plant growth, the nose-burning stench of liquified cow manure and greenhouse gas emissions.

The National Park Service should kick out the thousands of private Point Reyes cows.

Approximately 4,500 Point Reyes cattle are a financial bum steer for taxpayers. In a recent report, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility nonprofit organization reported on massive, annual taxpayer subsidies for ranchers in the park that it called technically illegal — talk about milking the public.

The PEER report asserted that ranchers lease 28,000 acres of Point Reyes parkland at half to a quarter of its market value. Rancher housing is gifted at only about a tenth its market value. Why is the public paying millions to finance the park’s biggest polluters?

Instead of having a million annual park visitors pay a handful of bucks to enjoy this public park, we should kick out the handful of businesses being propped up with far too many public tax dollars to foul and degrade it.

Park founders wanted forever free access for working people, not forever subsidies for ranchers. Don’t stick the public with parking fees; stop ranchers from sticking it to the public.

— Jack Gescheidt, San Rafael

Wildfire authority can do more for environment

The Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority meticulously details its endeavors in wildfire risk mitigation, yet upon closer inspection, certain aspects demand critical analysis.

While MWPA officials underscore their dedication to environmental preservation, including invasive species eradication and native biodiversity conservation, their assertion of the infrequent and necessary use of herbicides raises apprehensions.

Officials need to be more forthright about the use of triclopyr, a systemic herbicide used on broom, an invasive plant. Triclopyr poses potential long-term ecological ramifications. Even if applied with care according to integrated pest management principles, herbicides can disrupt sensitive ecosystems, affecting not only targeted species but also nontarget organisms and overall ecosystem health. The MWPA should do more to utilize available nontoxic alternatives for broom management.

I think the MWPA allocates a significant portion of taxpayer funds to vegetation management projects rather than prioritizing home hardening and emergency safe routes. Vegetation management should not be the primary defense against high-intensity wildfires. As insurance companies persist in canceling home policies due to wildfire risks, residents urgently require support for home hardening and comprehensive vegetation management across all Marin communities.

Though the MWPA’s intentions are commendable, it is essential to pivot toward a more nuanced approach, prioritizing home-hardening measures. This entails continual assessment of fund distribution, prioritizing projects offering optimal wildfire protection and a resolute commitment to adaptive management strategies. We must protect both community safety and environmental sustainability.

— Olivia Johnson, Novato