Letters: The question we should ask is, ‘Why so few affordable homes?’

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

The question is ‘why so few affordable homes?’

Re: “High earners, low rents: 1 in 8 pay below market” (Page A1, Sept. 6).

Regarding the article about a couple earning $300k and “only” paying $1,800 a month rent, the framing question is, “Why are they allowed to stay?”

This is absolutely the wrong question.

The first correct question is, “Why aren’t there more affordable housing units to meet the demand?” The second correct question is, “Why are we pretending that $1,800 a month rent for a one-bedroom apartment is affordable?” As someone on SSDI, my income would be too low to qualify to live there.

We have thousands of people who are unhoused in San Jose — 41% of whom are employed — but this city opted to use voter-approved funds intended for affordable housing to build instead glorified Tuff Sheds to shelter unhoused folks temporarily — at a greater long-term expense.

So the third correct question is, “Why did the city choose to do that?”

Andrew Siegler
San José

Save low-income homes for low-income workers

Re: “High earners, low rents: 1 in 8 pay below market” (Page A1, Sept. 6).

What is happening?

How can any entity provide well below rental market value for a property and not hold the tenant to the lease agreement of “low income”? I am dumbfounded that in a state where most public service workers, most food service workers, most college students, most elderly, most disabled … everyone barely surviving would be the victims, yes victims, of the scam that doesn’t require proof of low income every year.

To indicate, as in the article, that they ”would hope” that when renters earned more they would relinquish the apartment to provide housing to someone in need is absurd. Who are these people scamming the innocent taxpayer?

Sheryl Perez
Novato

Data centers are green energy’s big chance

In reading articles and comments about the opposition to data centers for the AI revolution, I am puzzled.

Much of the uproar deals with power generation, cooling and noise. I might, as a novice, suggest that all three of these problems could be solved very simply by solar panels and windmills. The sun shines and the wind blows, not just in urban and suburban neighborhoods, but in deserts, woodlands and hilly areas far from housing and city centers. Much of it is cheap, federal land, so cost can be controlled.

Since we have been told that solar and wind power is so clean and reliable for our businesses and homes, why not apply it to AI data center development? If not, why not?

Jay Morrett
San Jose

Teen shooter should be charged as adult

Re: “Teen charged in Morgan Hill killing” (Page B1, Sept. 1).

It is disheartening to see how prevalent gun violence continues to be. Not only that, but the fact that it occurs so close to home is all the more terrifying.

What started as a group of people seeking to celebrate turned into a chaotic scramble to save their lives. It is harrowing to imagine just how deeply the feeling of fear would run through someone’s body in that situation. There is nobody who should have to experience such a tragedy, especially on a joyous day. The fact that the attacker, who was legally still a minor, had access to weapons of that level of harm is appalling.

It is appropriate for the DA to charge the 17-year-old as an adult. He should understand the consequences of his actions. If he wants to hurt others like an adult, he should be reprimanded as one as well.

Caleb Carroll
San Jose

Trump’s order on mail-in ballots is plainly illegal

Re: “Trump asks court to allow mail voting limits” (Page A4, Sept. 4).

To assist the six SCOTUS justices apparently suffering from a tragic affliction causing them to have a reading-comprehension disability, here’s a short summary of relevant laws to help them expedite the ruling on Trump’s Executive Order regarding voting-by-mail:

● US Constitution, Article 1, Section 4: Each state decides how it holds elections for senators and representatives (the federal Executive Branch has no authority in this process).

● Federal law 18 U.S.C. Sections 1701 & 1702: Delaying, blocking, taking, or destroying mail before it reaches the intended person is punishable by up to 5 years in prison — per count.

This took me less than a minute to look up, so the court shouldn’t need more than nine minutes to issue a unanimous ruling striking down an obviously illegal Executive Order.

Dave Whitaker
San Jose