Letters for July 17, 2014

Give taxis a break

Re “Give Uber a Lyft” (SN&R Editorial, July 3):

I suppose you like surge pricing, which is a concept that Uber and Lyft use to gouge their customers up to eight times the price of the fare. Their idea of supply and demand is perverse. Supply and demand has nothing to do with raising prices in order to entice drivers to go out and drive. Uber and Lyft are merely Wall Street gimmicks that only service a very limited part of the population.

Most cabs are very modern and are priced competitively to what it costs to maintain a taxi operation. Believe me, no cab driver is getting rich out there on the streets right now. Uber and Lyft can afford to lower their prices a little because they don't pay nearly what cab companies pay.

Taxi companies and drivers (as well as the public) have a right to ask for a level playing field and that everybody plays by the same rules. Otherwise, let's do away with all permits and certificates as long as our smartphone can give us an app to provide the service. Let's get rid of the Food and Drug Administration for pharmaceutical distribution: “Hey, I have an app that can get me meds for next to nothing.”

Richard Mitchell

Sacramento

Barbecue dysphoria

Re “Barbecue euphoria” by Ann Martin Rolke (SN&R Dish, July 10):

Not sure how [Fahrenheit 250] could get such a glowing review. Our dining experience didn’t even come close. This is a two-star place, at best. We’d read a review that referred to this place as barbecue with linen tablecloths. This is a barbecue place, not a fine-dining restaurant. Prices for combo plates are expensive, and the meat servings are not generous. The dessert was ridiculously large, but very disappointing. The meats we tried—pulled pork, brisket and ribs—were just OK. We won’t be returning.

Karen Barsch

Sacramento

Crack in article?

Re “Crack (law) is wack” by Raheem F. Hosseini (SN&R News, July 3):

Raheem F. Hosseini’s article on reforms proposing to end the disparity in sentencing laws for crack cocaine, as opposed to cocaine in powder form, is interesting reading. Yet in some respects, the article’s claims seem questionable, based on the information provided within the article itself.

With respect to mandatory-minimum sentences for possession with intent to sell, the article cites three to five years for crack, vs. two to four years for powder. These are the only figures given comparing prison terms for crack vs. powder, and they do show a disparity, but hardly the “exponentially longer prison terms” claimed earlier on.

Hosseini is a good reporter who has contributed many intelligent, perceptive, well-written articles to SN&R. This one could perhaps have been thought out a bit more clearly.

David Urman

Sacramento

Put Breton in a corner

Re “Breton!” by Nick Miller (SN&R Editor’s Note, July 3):

Marcos Breton’s drivel was reminiscent of the bias one would get from Faux Newz. Why The Sacramento Bee allowed it is anyone’s guess.

Thank you for meaningful news in a quality manner! The Bee ought to have Breton stand in a corner wearing a dunce cap.

Frank Topping

Sacramento

Bee’s bad moves

Re “Breton!” by Nick Miller (SN&R Editor’s Note, July 3):

Since my wife and I moved to Sacramento in 1998, we’ve taken the Bee, and for most of that time, I have felt generally positive about Marcos Breton’s work; he frequently seemed to be on the right side of issues.

That changed when it seemed that overnight the entire Bee editorial board and its in-house columnists opened a full-court press to back all things Kevin Johnson, most notably the arena project. A year-and-a-half ago, we stopped renting and bought a home in Sacramento, and since then, I have taken a much greater interest in how city leadership manages our tax money. Hence my opposition to the arena and its funding plan.

Miles D. Wichelns

via email

Correction

In the story “A soldier’s trials” by Raheem F. Hosseini (SN&R News, July 10), Judge David W. Abbott was misidentified as Judge Robert C. Hight. It has been corrected online.