Marin IJ Readers’ Forum for Feb. 21, 2026

Leaders should not be political with tax dollars

It’s always eye-opening to see the spending priorities that state and local authorities make with our limited tax dollars. I was struck by a recent article about the plan to stop accepting $460,000 in federal funds to the Marin County Sheriff’s Office, which requires it to share information about non-citizen criminals in custody (“Marin might eschew federal money linked to migrant detainees,” Feb. 11). The story also noted that the county allocates $240,000 for migrant legal expenses if detained.

I too was upset by the actions of federal agents in Minneapolis and favor a path to citizenship for migrants who have been here for a while. However, if the citizenship proposal included a path to citizenship for undocumented felons, I would oppose it. I suspect that the activists promoting the cancellation of this funding are really more opposed to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency in general than they are to supporting local felons. As such, I think the cancellation of this funding would be a mistake.

At a state level, we have much wasteful spending. Untold millions have been spent unsuccessfully on the homeless problem. California Attorney General Rob Bonta appears to be filing myriad wasteful lawsuits that can’t possibly be won. Some lawsuits make sense, such as ones related to President Donald Trump withholding funds approved by Congress. Lawsuits like the one about the attire of ICE employees couldn’t possibly win. I suspect this is just political posturing for a future run for governor with our tax dollars.

New Mexico, one of the poorest states in the union, offers free child care for children up to age 13 regardless of family income. California, one of the richest states, apparently cannot afford to do that. Similar examples make it clear to me that our priorities are for the homeless, undocumented immigrants and political posturing.

— Robert Stenson, Larkspur

Reverse-commute carpool hours making traffic worse

When Caltrans initially changed the high-occupancy vehicle hours on Highway 101 during the final stages of the Marin-Sonoma Narrows widening between Novato and Petaluma, it included restrictions during off-commute hours. I was one of the people who resisted, saying it did not make sense to prevent single drivers from using the lane when there was rarely congestion during those “reverse commute” hours.

Back then, it seemed Caltrans got the message. It said it would reevaluate after it had several months of experience with the new hours. Recently, Caltrans announced it would reduce the HOV hours by 30 minutes in one direction and two hours in the other. I think Caltrans is missing the point.

We have had over six months of experience. Every person I have spoken to about it believes traffic congestion has gotten worse, not better. If Caltrans has data to illustrate that the HOV restrictions have resulted in less congestion because of a significant number of single driver cars — maybe because they have given up their individual drives and are now carpooling (or public transportation) — then it should show us the data. If it makes sense, then let’s keep the new HOV hours. If not, reverse course and go back to the old rules.

Building a highway lane is a very expensive endeavor. Tying it up so only a few people can use it is a huge waste of money. Let’s do what works.

— Peter Sorensen, Mill Valley

Deferred maintenance must be seen as public debt

The bill always comes due.

Today’s savings become tomorrow’s breakdowns and larger repair bills.

When a city postpones maintenance on roads, pipes or levees, the cost does not disappear. It compounds quietly until a pothole damages a tire or a levee gives up holding back bay waters.

Cities proudly list what they own. Novato reports 152 miles of pavement valued at $277 million. On paper, that suggests strength. Yet the city’s pavement condition index is graded in the C range, and consultants estimate that roughly $3 million annually is required simply to prevent further decline.

Here is the structural problem. Under current accounting standards, deferred maintenance does not appear as a liability unless there is a specific legal obligation to repair it. The growing backlog remains largely invisible on the balance sheet and therefore invisible to the taxpayer, even though taxpayers will ultimately bear the cost.

Unfunded pensions are reported clearly with large figures attached. Deferred infrastructure costs are not. Yet both represent future claims on public resources.

When maintenance is delayed, deterioration accelerates. Repair costs rise sharply once infrastructure falls below critical thresholds. Storms and king tides expose weaknesses that accumulated over decades. Broken levees, flooded neighborhoods, sewage leaks and millions in damages are the result.

This is not only a budgeting issue. It is a transparency issue.

If governments count infrastructure as an asset, they should also publish an annual estimate of deferred maintenance liability alongside pension obligations and bonded debt. Residents deserve to see the full fiscal picture.

A balanced budget is not simply an operating surplus. True balance requires honest accounting of long-term obligations.

Infrastructure is generational. So is the responsibility to maintain it.

— Marc Hunter Lewis, Novato

More non-dairy alternatives in schools is commendable

I consider recent moves to expand access to non-dairy milk in school lunch programs to be a long-overdue step toward healthier, more inclusive nutrition. Millions of students are lactose intolerant, allergic to dairy or come from families that avoid animal products for ethical or cultural reasons.

Offering plant-based milk isn’t radical — it’s practical. These options provide essential nutrients without the saturated fat and cholesterol found in dairy, and they come with a much smaller environmental footprint.

School meals shape lifelong habits. When we normalize plant-based choices early, we teach children that compassion, health and sustainability can coexist on the same tray.

In a time when childhood health concerns and climate anxiety are rising, modernizing school nutrition just makes sense. Giving students plant-based options empowers families, respects differences and quietly models a kinder way forward — one lunch at a time.

— Mark Isemann, Novato

Charter funding puts public schools in bind

I think teacher strikes are a necessity these days. Most school districts do not have enough money to support teachers and the schools. I believe charter schools, which are partially funded with public money, are to blame.

Public schools were established to educate the masses. I consider charter schools to be the equivalent of a private school for the privileged children of privileged parents. Disappointingly, in the last 34 years, California voters passed legislation to fund charter schools six times.

The first legislation was Senate Bill 1448 in 1992 to partially fund charter schools. Then, in 1998, legislation to increase funding was approved. In 2002, voters said yes to Proposition 47. It gave $100 million for facilities at charter schools. In 2013 there was another yes vote for facilities. In 2016, more bond measures were approved and Proposition 51 was approved. That bill allocated funding to both public and charter schools.

In my opinion, voters have been duped every time. Now, with support being split, many public school districts can’t afford to pay their teachers. So of course they should be striking for increased pay and health care.

I think they should also be striking to defund charter schools. They are draining funds away. I urge everyone to please wake up and pay attention to what kinds of schools you are supporting when you vote yes.

— Pamela Lunstead, Novato

Billionaires couldn’t spend the money in dozen lifetimes

I am writing in regard to the article about a proposed one-time 5% tax on our state’s billionaires. It was written by the New York Times and republished in the IJ on Feb. 15 with the headline “California billionaires: Should I stay or should I go?”

It has me wondering why anyone needs a net worth of over $1 billion. Look at it this way: If at birth you earned a dollar every second, in less than two weeks you’d be a millionaire. But billionaire status wouldn’t come until age 31. You can’t spend that kind of money in a dozen lifetimes.

— Jim Wood, Tiburon