Let picky Starbucks customers take the time to customize to their delight | Opinion
Don’t blame picky customers
“Starbucks is in trouble. Let’s blame those picky customers who hold up the line” (fresnobee.com, Sept. 9)
I don’t understand why you argue that customers shouldn’t customize to their hearts content. The options are there, so why not take advantage of them? It’s not harming anyone, they’re not demanding anything out of this world, so what is the bother?
Also, pitting customers against each other seems so far-fetched. Mobile order people do not feel a sense of supremacy because of a quick pick-up, and they prioritize drive through because, if you’re not going inside, you most likely don’t have a lot of time to wait.
It’s your own fault you feel this way. It’s your choice to go inside the store and wait. If you don’t like it, order online like the “smug” online customers do.
Valerie Tapia Murrillo
Fresno
Opinion
Customers are right
“Starbucks is in trouble. Let’s blame those picky customers who hold up the line” (fresnobee.com, Sept. 9)
How would you feel if someone said, “You’re too picky, go somewhere else.” Blaming customers for placing long orders they are paying for as the reason Starbucks is losing income is a far stretch. Starbucks is a company that encourages customers to order the kind of drink that fits their liking and lifestyle.
Customers who choose to order a complicated drink don’t happen very often, as the writer claims. It usually works out fine, and customers can typically expect to wait no more than 10 minutes.
From my experience, I would say I haven’t experienced “long orders” being at fault for the wait time. Instead, it’s due to the number of people in the store at any given time.
One of the reasons why Starbucks may be in trouble is because of protests that have occurred against them. For example, there continues to be a protest against them to show support for Palestine. Overall, ordering a complicated drink does not have much of an impact on a billion-dollar company.
Bertha Castillo
Porterville
Gun store owners should adapt
“Gun stores in Fresno area are closing. Owners blame California laws, taxes and economy” (fresnobee.com, Sept. 15)
I disagree with the assertion that state regulations and its taxes are the sole blame. This claim suggests that California’s strict gun laws and high taxes are driving gun stores out of business. While these factors do pose challenges, this piece neglects to mention that this does not only affect gun stores but other local businesses as well.
The article then holds that loosening gun laws would make business thrive again, yet it ignores the state’s priority of public safety through strict gun laws — which almost every Californian supports. Other businesses navigate strict regulations and taxes, yet they are able to thrive. Rather than pointing fingers at regulations and taxes, business owners should be encouraged to adapt to new economic policies.
Eduardo Basurto
Fresno
Train emissions
“Valley congressman: Requiring zero-emission locomotives will harm supply-chain infrastructure | Opinion,” (fresnobee.com, Sept. 19)
Congressman Vince Fong recently admonished that “we must protect our nation’s supply chain from self-inflicted disruptions that come from short sighted and unworkable regulations.” He was criticizing the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Locomotive Regulation requiring that locomotives eventually become zero-emission when they operate in California.
Trains, which are federally regulated, are a significant pollution source in our Valley. Locomotive emissions are associated with numerous serious health problems. The burdens of disease, premature deaths and billions of dollars in health care costs can be avoided. An expeditious process to hasten widespread implementation of cleaner technologies is urgent.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District states that required improvements to our air quality cannot be attained without federal support. Reducing train emissions is crucial.
Newer engines create a fraction of the pollution of older engines. Protecting our health must be pursued with the same zeal as preserving and improving our vital supply chains.
Nancy Richardson
League of Women Voters of Fresno
Surface reservoirs needed
“Solution to California’s water storage needs lies underground, not more dams” (fresnobee.com, Sept. 24)
Marek Warszawski makes a good point about the value of groundwater storage in helping meet California’s water supply needs, but his dismissal of new or upgraded dams and reservoirs is shortsighted.
The Public Policy Institute of California and other experts emphasize the crucial connection between surface water storage and groundwater recharge, particularly in the context of California’s variable climate and water needs. During wet winters, surface reservoirs play a vital role in capturing excess runoff, which can then be managed to optimize groundwater recharge. This is essential for replenishing California’s aquifers, which are heavily relied upon during dry years.
A key benefit of surface water storage is this ability to slow the flow of runoff, allowing time for water to percolate into groundwater aquifers. Without surface storage, much of the winter runoff would overwhelm rivers and streams, causing flooding, property damage and putting lives at risk.
This system is important as climate change leads to more variable precipitation patterns and less reliable snowpack, threatening California’s water security. Combining surface storage with groundwater recharge is a key strategy to ensure long-term water sustainability in the state.
Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition executive director
Farmers for Trump?
“Central Valley farmers like Donald Trump on water. On California’s Kamala Harris, less so” (fresnobee.com, Sept. 14)
Fresno is my hometown and where I lived for the majority of my adult life. I was surprised this summer, while attending a family reunion, to see a large billboard on Highway 99 between Visalia and Fresno with the message “Farmers for Trump.” I couldn’t help but think these farmers will have a large part of their farmworker crews decimated by Donald Trump’s policy of mass deportation.
I can imagine what catastrophic economic fallout that will cause for all of us, who buy the harvests of these crops for our families. Think!
Terry Dickey
Springfield
Poverty is not a choice
“Where does poverty come from?” (fresnobee.com, Sept. 23)
Kevin D. Williamson argues that poverty is largely a result of personal behavior and cultural choices. I disagree, and would like to argue that poverty is in fact a deeply rooted systematic problem that policy decisions from history have not been able to fix. Some factors include historical racism, lack of access to quality education and an unfair difference in wages that play a significant role in trapping individuals and communities in cycles of poverty.
While personal responsibility is important, this must be viewed in a broader systematic challenge that has limited opportunities and enforce economic inequality. A better solution to poverty would be to reform housing, education, healthcare and the labor market.
Poverty is a vicious cycle that most people cannot escape from.
Isabella L. Arias
Reedley
Policies shape poverty
“Where does poverty come from?” (fresnobee.com, Sept. 23)
Poverty isn’t a natural state for humans, it is a direct result of the systems we create and the policies we implement. Even though historical thinkers might have seen poverty as inevitable, they didn’t have the benefit of modern insights into how government policies and social structures shape economic outcomes now.
Congresswoman Barbara Lee is right when she argues that poverty stems from policy choices — not just an unavoidable fact of life.
Take countries that have strong social safety nets, like universal healthcare, good education and living wages. These places actually have much lower poverty rates, proving that smart policy can make a real difference. However, countries with weak labor laws, unfair tax structures and poor public services see much more poverty. This shows that it’s not something that just happens, but it is instead influenced by the decisions we make.
Claiming poverty is “natural” dismisses the role of power and politics in creating economic inequality. When we frame it as something that can’t be helped, we overlook the real drivers behind it. History shows that when policies focus on people’s needs, poverty declines.
Its existence isn’t inevitable; it’s the result of the choices we make.
Lilianna Andrade
Porterville