Riverbank residents oppose River Walk. City leaders should reject proposal | Opinion

Riverbank residents reject River Walk

“Riverbank City Council must ensure accurate River Walk EIR,” (modbee.com, Aug. 16)

The Executive Committee of the Yokuts Group and the Sierra Club of Stanislaus County voted unanimously against Riverbank’s proposed River Walk development project. This project would require the city to annex almost 1,000 acres west of the city’s current boundary to McHenry Road and north of Patterson Road. If this goes forward, 2,400 new homes and commercial buildings will be built.

This project will pave over soil of very high arable quality and will negatively affect the underlying reservoir.

As a Riverbank resident, I helped canvas in my neighborhood to gather signatures for a Riverbank Urban Limit Initiative. During my canvassing, I noticed most residents were opposed to the project and to the city’s western expansion. Enough signatures were collected to put the Urban Limit Initiative on the 2026 ballot. If passed, Riverbank voters will decide whether or not to extend Riverbank’s current northwestern boundary to accommodate or reject the River Walk development project.

Riverbank’s leaders should listen to their constituents and reject this proposal on its merits.

Kent Mitchell

Political Chair, Yokuts Group

Riverbank

Why I support redistricting

“‘Gavinmander’: Tit-for-tat gerrymandering isn’t a shortcut to victory | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, Aug. 17)

In the core of my soul, I believe that racial and partisan gerrymandering is immoral and legally wrong. In normal times, I believe in good governance, competing on a level playing field electorally, where everybody respects the rules and the referees call balls and strikes. That is not where we are right now.

Right now, legacy media, the Supreme Court, Congress and wealthy corporate donors stand complicit in watching this five-alarm fire burn democratic rules and norms to the ground; where a sitting president is attempting to change the rules because he cannot win the game.

I am a pro-democracy citizen who stands for the rule of law and will fight with the power that I do have — my vote. I support Gov. Gavin Newsom’s redistricting measure if for no other reason than to make sure that democracy can — at the very least — fight to live another day.

Donald Leeper

Sacramento

California must respond

“‘Gavinmander’: Tit-for-tat gerrymandering isn’t a shortcut to victory | Opinion,” (sacbee.com, Aug. 17)

Texas Republicans are using gerrymandering to redistrict our nation toward minority rule. They are doing this mid-decade and without any new census data. Why? Their national leader — a man whose authoritarian proclivities are well-documented — has ordered them to do so.

A recent op-ed, authored by two individuals from the California Constitution Center, asserts that Californians should not respond — rather, we should take the high road and adhere to the principles of “good government” that we have enshrined in our Redistricting Commission.

I voted for the commission, and I believe in the principles of “good government.” If these were normal times, I would agree with the authors. But as they know (and fail to emphasize), these are not normal times. We are effectively being asked to bring our “principles” to a gun fight — a fool’s errand.

Therefore, I support — and urge others to support — all efforts to temporarily suspend our Redistricting Commission until the next census.

Harry Gibbons

Sacramento

Scientific progress stalled

“NIH budget cuts threaten the future of biomedical research - and the young scientists behind it,” (sacbee.com, July 7)

While caring for a newborn in the neonatal intensive care unit with a serious brain injury, I was reminded how much progress research has made possible. Just 20 years ago, these cases almost always led to lifelong disability or death. Today, thanks to decades of federally funded studies, we can offer therapeutic hypothermia, a treatment that reduces mortality and severe neurodevelopmental impairment.

That progress is now threatened. The suspension of grants for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation — including those critical to maternal and infant health — risks halting discoveries that save lives. Neonatal research has already brought us high quality prenatal care through antenatal steroids for premature lungs, the prevention of Rh disease and maternal RSV vaccination.

Cutting funding stops lifesaving projects and undermines the training of young physicians and scientists. Protecting this investment means safeguarding the futures of our littlest Californians — and ensuring children’s health is never negotiable.

Trisha Mulamreddy

Los Angeles