Proposition 38 will save the lives of Californians and beyond
Dear Editor,
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 1.5 million Americans die of heart conditions, cancers, and Alzheimer’s disease each year. These debilitating conditions have long been leading causes of death. Recent attacks on funding from the federal administration have left medical research institutions underfunded and ill-equipped.
By borrowing $8.4 billion for a bond split evenly between the University of California and other university-related and non-profit research efforts, Proposition 38 will fund immunotherapy studies to treat and maintain groundbreaking work for Californians and all of humanity.
Financial concerns from the opposition are valid. $8.4 billion in bonds is a hefty amount to put on California’s shoulders. However, the state can pay off these debts. Proposition 38 ensures that profits from successful treatments developed from its funds will partially return back to the state. There is a clear plan for returning the money borrowed.
While bonds can be repaid, lost lives cannot be saved. Families already pay so much money and time hoping to delay the progression of deadly diseases that devastatingly replace loved ones with gravestones. Finding more effective treatments through Proposition 38 research would lower financial burdens in the long run. Advanced research may very well save millions both now and in the future.
As poet Dylan Thomas wrote in 1947, “Do not go gentle into that good night / Rage, rage against the dying of the light.” Nearly a century later, millions around the world are fighting against their own dying lights in the face of debilitating diseases. $8.4 billion is crucial for research efforts to save them. Vote Yes on Proposition 38.
— Vangogh Tran
Visible stop signs in school zones
Dear Editor,
In 2023, 226 pedestrians, 31 being less than 15 years old, either died or were injured as a result of being struck by a vehicle in Stanislaus County. Specifically, too many people run past stop signs in school zones, and this leads to a lack of safety for students who are simply trying to get an education. It has been all too many times where I have been crossing the street at a marked crosswalk and someone fails to stop. I propose that stop signs in school zones should be more visible and marked with a warning sign stating the California Vehicle Code § 22450, which states the consequences of running a stop sign. In unsafe conditions such as heavy fog, road flares help, but an increase in safety can exist with the use of solar-powered LED stop signs. School districts or cities can apply for grants from the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). This organization awards roughly $140 million a year and focuses on pedestrian and bicycle safety. Regardless of money, one safe trip to school is one life saved.
— Sarai Valdez
Proposition 3 will keep our schools funded
Dear Editor,
Out of all states California holds the highest unemployment rate, which is at 5.4%. Because of this, we cannot afford to lay off 1 in 6 educators or squeeze more desks into an already crowded classroom. Proposition 3 asks voters to make permanent the state's existing, temporary high-income tax rates for the top 2% of earners to keep ongoing funding for public education and healthcare. This means that voting Yes on Proposition 3 keeps our statewide school funding stable without raising a single cent in new taxes. If we vote Yes on Proposition 3 then it is estimated that the tax generates between $5 billion to $15 billion annually.
However, if it does not pass, it could end up forcing school districts to lay off 1 in 6 educators and increase class sizes substantially. Not only that but California would also take a huge loss of up to $15 billion annually. This will end up in several layoffs, program cuts, and other reductions. Because 89% of these funds are locked to protect K-12 schools and 11% to community colleges, letting this revenue expire would automatically shrink the base budget for education dramatically. This would hurt the state budget, forcing lawmakers to take money from schools and leaving less for universities, public safety, and healthcare expansion programs like Medi-Cal. Voting No will result in severe teacher layoffs, critical community program cuts, and widespread reductions across California's most vital safety. So, if you enjoy living in California where our local public schools are fully staffed, classrooms remain a manageable size, and vital community healthcare services are secure and stable, voting Yes on Proposition 3 is the best choice for you.
— Nikolai Vilkofsky
Screen time negatively affects cognitive development
Dear Editor,
The use of screen time in California’s education system is debilitating cognitive development in adolescents. Early childhood is very important for mental development. This is a crucial time to develop attention, memory, language, and fine-motor skills. However screen time is negatively impacting these developments. According to The National Library of Medicine, high amounts of screen time harms important adolescent developments. For example, let us discuss handwriting versus typing. Handwriting assignments allow children to physically interact with letters, giving them a visual connection to language. A study conducted in 2025 by The National Library of Medicine shows handwriting allows children to develop stronger word recognition skills. However, it has been proven that typing information rather than writing information reduces these cognitive skills. Adolescents may be at the most risk of decreased development due to the simple fact that their brains are still developing. Excessive screen time during this important stage may affect attention, learning, and many other skills that are important to healthy cognitive development. Modern day education systems allow electronics to be the core of every classroom. However, electronics and their screen time should instead be introduced later in the cognitive development process, allowing children to develop important skills they will need to be successful members of society. Screen time needs to be decreased in education systems, and instead slowly be integrated into 4th or 5th classrooms. Children need more hands-on learning in order to be successful. This is why I believe children need less screen time in classrooms.
— Makenna Yonan
Proposition 40 should be supported
Dear Editor,
Proposition 40, also known as the billionaire tax, will provide major benefits for California. I support this Proposition because it will raise much needed funding for important programs. Specifically, this Proposition would create more funding for education, healthcare, and other needs. California funds over $100 billion in education, which takes up around half of the state’s money. With Proposition 40, we can maintain high levels of funding for major programs, while being able to support other minor essentials that benefit Californians.
Some people argue that billionaires could level California financially or that the tax would irreparably damage businesses in the long term. However, the funding generated from these taxes are not going to be wasted, they are going to be invested in necessities that will improve our society. I support Proposition 40 because the wealthiest individuals can contribute more to help California. The funding will make a positive difference in important areas.
— Adolfo Acevedo
No Chromebooks in our classrooms
Dear Editor,
As a young girl, my parents emphasized that having a phone would rot my brain. Therefore, I turned to reading and writing, which has benefitted me tremendously. My parents limited my exposure to social media and it frustrated me immensely. Looking back, I completely understand my parent’s worldview. Technology seems to creep in on every corner of the youth. Elementary students have Chromebooks and are more familiar with a keyboard than dotted lines for reading and writing. It is a sad reality, but it is true. As a student mentor who visits 4th graders four out of five days of the school week, the way online lingo and trends have infiltrated young minds is concerning. I see it every day on the blacktop while making my observations and it’s an alarming shift. The fact that artificial intelligence is also embedded in educational apps and tools is even more alarming. Why is there an AI chatbot sitting in the corner of screens as a “tutor?” Schools in California need to push for kids becoming functioning members in society who can think for themselves. Instead, children and young adults alike are relying on something to think for them. My solution: K-3rd graders should not be exposed to laptops or other devices. Instead, more paper assignments should be implemented. California’s AB 1709 states that children under the age of 16 are not to create or keep social media accounts. There are already steps to reduce adolescent interaction with the downsides of technology, why is it different when it comes to our school settings? For the sake of future generations, there must be action to inhibit AI and tech in our classrooms.
— Khloie Almatran
The mission to save our children
Dear Editor,
If Proposition 3 fails, educational funding will be cut, along with our kids' future. Proposition 3 prevents a tax cut for the wealthiest 2% by maintaining the current tax rates. Those funds get put into both healthcare and education, which is why I believe that our community should support and vote for Proposition 3. In the Central Valley, our schools do not receive enough funding; the last thing we should be doing is putting the funds we already have at risk. The funds that our schools receive helps pay for teachers, materials, extracurriculars and technology. If we lose these funds, these opportunities can also disappear and negatively affect our children. Not only that, but we should remember that education is an investment in the future of our community. When we properly educate our children, they can become business owners, doctors, lawyers and much more. If we support them now and funding remains for their schools, we can give them a strong education that will prepare them to contribute to society later on. I understand why voters may feel wary of where their tax dollars are going, especially when tax money should be spent responsibly. Government spending should be questioned, but taking away funding from schools is not the answer. Proposition 3 gives voters a voice to make clear that education matters to us. If we want a strong future in the Central Valley, we have to invest in our children right now. That is why I believe that we should vote Yes on Proposition 3.
— Nimrat Brar
Performing arts are just as important as athletics
Dear Editor,
A typical high school marching band receives far more trophies than the beloved high school football team. A high school choir goes on to state-wide competitions while the basketball team cannot make it to sectionals. In many California districts, the performing arts receive the scraps of district funds. Yet, the performing arts are just as expensive as high school athletics to maintain, and still manage to outperform.
While it is important that most school funding is directed to the actual learning part, the majority of leftover funds go towards athletics and always wind up giving the performing arts the scraps of those leftover funds. Some California districts have started to give a little more to the performing arts, yet it is nothing compared to the funds of the athletics. The best way the performing arts can get more funds is through hosting more fundraisers that are specific to the performing arts and supporting their booster programs. Many fundraisers districts seem to either lean towards the elementary schools or the athletics. If the district pushed fundraisers towards promoting and helping the performing arts programs, then there will be more money for the performing arts, instead of giving them the scraps of the leftover funds. And if they cannot put on fundraisers that are specific to one area, they should create fundraisers that help raise funds for the entirety of that school district. With those funds they should then proportionately distribute the funds so one is not getting more over the other. The performing arts should not have to suffer in the shadow of athletics and should be taken more seriously.
— Avery Brasil
California's future falls in the next governor's hand
Dear Editor,
California is far too important to keep repeating the same mistakes. For years Californians have watched the cost of living rise exponentially and affordable housing becoming less attainable for working-class people. We need a governor who is willing to challenge conventional thinking and lead our great state into a new direction. I believe that Steve Hilton is the best candidate to deliver on that promise. For many of us what stands out about Hilton is his willingness to question the policies that have driven this state into disrepair. We need a new governor who will take a hard look at what is failing and more importantly what needs to change. Hilton has continuously emphasized issues that matter to everyday Californians, including reducing the cost of living, improving public safety, making houses affordable again, and creating a place where businesses and families can succeed. These issues are directly affecting the people in communities like Turlock and throughout the Central Valley. California needs stronger leadership outside of Sacramento's political bubble. The Central Valley is often overlooked when decisions are made at the state capital. We need leaders who understand that California is far more than just Los Angelees and San Francisco. This election gives Californians a rare opportunity to choose a new direction for themselves. I deeply encourage voters to examine Steve Hilton's ideas, compare candidates, and make their voices be heard this midterm cycle. If we want California to become more safe, affordable, and prosperous, we will need to support the leaders who are willing to take on these growing challenges head on. For me, that leader is Steve Hilton.
— William Cole
School or mental health: Which is more important?
Dear Editor,
Should students be disregarding their own mental health and feel like they should prioritize education instead? Do we really need students to be going through so much stress for 10 months straight, buried in homework, studying for exams, week by week, day by day without giving them much resources that would help them deal with all of that stress. Students often stress how difficult it is to be able to balance all of their schoolwork without being able to access an outlet that can help them with their mental stress. Many schools already have resources for this such as school therapists and a break room for students, however we should have more resources for this specific dilemma. Schools should input more well being initiatives such as weekly check-ins, group therapy counseling, and offering different types of therapy outlets. Offering these resources can help students stay more focused in school, keep them healthy and can directly impact their academic success. This can also help students in the long run by helping them maintain self care habits that can be super beneficial in their future careers, relationships, and adult lives. School is supposed to nurture students so that they can make a good impact on American society in the future, not make them feel helpless under so much pressure. Many stress that education is important but maintaining a good mental health is even more. Putting on so much stress onto students and providing little to no help for them is not going to end in something healthy for them.
— Yasmin Gutierrez
Investing in affordable housing
Dear Editor,
Imagine not having a place for your family to feel safe, for many Californians this is reality. I support Proposition 1 because California needs more affordable housing. According to the California Secretary of State’s Official Voter Information Guide, Proposition 1 would approve $11.25 billion in bonds for housing programs, affordable rental housing, homeownership assistance, and even housing for our veterans and seniors. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office shows that $7.2 billion would go toward affordable multifamily housing, with $1.1 billion directed at supporting homeownership programs. The Proposition would also provide money for farmworkers, students, and tribal housing. I believe this is important because housing costs have skyrocketed making it difficult for families in California to be able to afford a safe place to live. Proposition 1 will help create more affordable homes and provide countless people the opportunity to live the California dream. The official voter guide estimates that the bond will help fund up to 40,000 multifamily rental units and assist up to 40,000 households with homeownership. I understand that the state would spend about $600 million a year for around 25 years to repay the housing portion of the bond. However, I believe investing in affordable housing is worth the cost because it will benefit our community by keeping people off the street.
— Adam Hassan
The elimination of valuable agricultural land
Dear Editor,
I am infuriated with the housing developments that are constructed on a substantial amount of rich agricultural land. As there are more housing developments going up around the Central Valley, there is less opportunity for sustainable agriculture that provides food on the table for all. Does the Central Valley producing 25%-40% of food across the United States mean nothing with the new propositions trying to be passed in California? For example Proposition 1 allowing a borrowed fund of 11.25 billion dollars in order to produce affordable housing and reduce homelessness will lead to loss of valuable land that can still be in use for practical farming purposes. How will there be a balance between the two problems we struggle with heavily? In order to continue strong soil lands across the Central Valley, and potentially across the state as a whole there needs to be a call to action for more housing but less opportunity of this issue taking away farming land. Our local community and county should try to repurpose unused current developed land already. This for example would be abandoned buildings, shopping centers, and places not in use anymore that housing development companies can purchase rather than the precious land we use to produce food. There should be further in-depth examination when wanting to produce housing in areas and a stricter policy of approval in order to not counteract against the main purpose of the Central Valley which is the treasure of agriculture that is the breadbasket to the people of America.
— Emma Hurt
