Emergency response fee
Monterey’s intent to bill residents for 911 calls involving an ambulance is unworkable, unfair, unconscionable and shameful coming at a time when many people are losing health insurance likely causing some not to call and therefore not receive emergency responses.
How would it work? Does the Good Samaritan who makes a call get billed? Do accident victims who can’t deny services get billed? If unconscious, how is billing information collected? Does the at-fault party in an accident get billed? Does this set off a maelstrom of legal suits to determine who should pay 911 billing? Do we really need a new 911 billing bureaucracy?
Billing for 911 unfairly places a burden on people at the moment of their highest vulnerability, and 911 services are paid out of taxes. It unconscionably places a barrier between the public and 911 services. It’s shameful because the city’s financial problems have been predictable for years, and result from poor leadership of successive mayors who’ve lacked the sophistication to understand and address city revenue in progressive rather than regressive means or who’ve kept the people in the dark about the budget.
Please do not place a barrier between 911 services and those in need.
– – Timothy Barrett, Monterey
Panetta on Venezuela
Thanks to Congressman Panetta for speaking out and opposing Trump’s illegal actions in Venezuela. I appreciated him introducing legislation with other veterans in Congress over a month ago to make clear that there should be no war in Venezuela without Congressional authorization. Our taxpayer dollars should be focused on issues like affordable housing and health care, not new military ventures in Venezuela or Greenland. I trust Panetta to stand firm and oppose sending troops or other illegal military action in Venezuela or elsewhere. Unfortunately, Trump is driven not by democratic values, but by dollars. I’m glad Panetta continues to stand up to Trump and for the Constitution. We can only hope that Speaker Johnson and the Republicans in charge of Congress will do the same. If not, we the people must hold Congressional Republicans accountable in 2026 and speak out loudly and clearly that we do not support military action in Venezuela or elsewhere.
— Elena Loomis, Monterey
Cartoon deeply troubling
I am extremely disappointed by the decision to publish Friday’s “Cartoonist’s Take” involving ICE.
The cartoon’s implication of violence — specifically against a fleeing woman — is not satire. It is cruel, irresponsible, and deeply troubling. Normalizing or trivializing lethal force in this way contributes to fear and division, not understanding or informed debate.
Editorial cartoons carry influence, and with that comes responsibility. This image failed that responsibility and reflects poorly on the Monterey Herald’s judgment and values.
I expect more from a publication that serves a diverse and thoughtful community. I urge you to take this feedback seriously and consider the real harm such imagery can cause.
— Mary Johnson-Derr
PG&E rates
Oh boo-hoo, the PUC recently voted to reduce PG&E’s profit level from the current rate of 10.28% all the way down to 9.98%, over the complaints of the giant utility that this cataclysmic reduction might deter future investors. Gosh, I hope they can scrape by on such meager earnings.
— Glenn Nolte, Carmel Valley
Foreign policy
Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen’s recent argument published in the Herald relies on two familiar but flawed assumptions.
First, opposition to endless regime-change wars, perpetual bombing campaigns, and a permanent U.S. military footprint abroad is not “isolationism.” It is a judgment about effectiveness and cost. Rejecting discretionary wars does not mean abandoning trade, diplomacy, alliances, or deterrence. The last two decades—from Iraq and Libya to Afghanistan—demonstrate that maximalist military intervention has often produced instability, weakened U.S. credibility, and drained resources better devoted to genuine national interests. Prudence is not withdrawal.
Second, the essay’s concluding “if”—that if Trump succeeds in implementing this vision Americans will be “very pleased”—assumes a likelihood of success that recent history does not justify. Since 2000, repeated assurances that military force would deliver stability or democracy have been contradicted by outcomes. To treat success as the default rather than the exception is not serious analysis; it is wishful thinking.
A real foreign policy debate should be grounded in evidence, not slogans or conditional promises.
— Thomas Lee, Monterey
