What if the homeless won’t accept help? | Opinion

Homeless or helpless?

Re “It’s high time to end Modesto’s intractable homelessness problem” (Page 1C, March 12): I thank Mr. Jamieson for his opinion. I found it to be truthful, honest and needed to be said. Being from Turlock, I wish the City Council and police, who have been doing more lately, would read it and consider some additional ideas.

I would agree, enough is enough. If the homeless are unwilling to accept the help being offered and not follow ordinances and laws of our city, then they should be held accountable, like the rest of the general population. For those who think this too harsh, I would suggest you feed them at your house on your side of town. You could sponsor one, while having them camp on your property until they get their life back on track.

If there’s one thing the homeless are not in short supply of, it’s the excuses they have for being where they are and why they can’t or won’t get any better.

Marcial Garcia, Turlock

Toxic water mystery

Re “Toxic substance temporarily closes Modesto dog park” (Front Page, March 15): Thank you, Erin Tracy, for putting the facts into print. I was appalled to hear that some evil person had tried to poison dogs visiting the enclosed dog park on W. Morris.

If a dog was exposed to antifreeze, the owner needs to know to be able to tell the vet immediately. If the fire department tested it and deemed it antifreeze, that should be noted on the closure sign. I want to know whether the police department has asked for information from citizens. The puddle is in an enclosed area not accessible when the park is closed. Somebody might have seen something.

For many of us, our pets are our children and this is not a minor incident and certainly not an accident.

Candice Carleton, Modesto

We mustn’t ignore racist past

Re “County to search records for racist property covenants” (Front Page, March 19): When I read this article about redacting “grotesque covenants” on property records, my immediate reaction was, “whitewashing the truth.” And I was glad to read Ms. Byrd’s and the Frobas’ similar response, that taking such an action because of concern for upsetting future buyers was, to use an old expression, hogwash. To me this is analogous to the arguments against critical race theory — that students will be upset by the facts of slavery. Or that the herding of Japanese Americans into California prison camps makes people cringe (did Germans get herded into camps?). Or how the Irish were treated when they arrived, or numerous other immigrant groups that were sneered at and discriminated against over the decades.

Despite America’s ongoing insistence and need to portray itself as being an inclusive country of long-standing, whitewashing, redacting and canceling the truth with a black marker does not negate what happened. Someone unknowingly buying a property in a formerly restrictive area should instead use the fact to reflect on what that meant at the time, and use it as a teaching tool for themselves and others so that such travesties do not occur again. Those who ignore history risk repeating it.

Claudia Walsh, Modesto

Check for thee, but not for me

I recently read that certain city employees will be receiving a hefty check of $7,500 for working through the (COVID) lockdown. Apparently their lives are worth more than mine. I also worked through the lockdown. Where’s my check? Is my safety and well-being worth less? To top it off I have to chip in involuntarily to pay them? This is clearly discrimination of non-city or county workers.

Here’s a good idea: no more checks, period.