@lookingaround Thank you for the comments.

My explanation for the law enforcement cost increase was that was the number the County Sheriff charges to Cupertino. I guess it's more costly to setup the in house police department at first, but the running cost should be lower than what the County Sheriff charges. But it's just a guess, I would love to see a research to compare the two options.

For sales tax, in a perfect world, each city should receive the sales tax from their residents. For each $100 on taxable spending, the city should receive $1 (the other $8 goes to the state, county, etc). Cupertino should receive only $60K per month or $720K per year if average resident spending is $100 per month. $9M sales tax is equivalent to $1250 non grocery spending per resident (not per household) per month. I don't know about other families, but my family should be much lower than this number. I think even $9M sales tax for Cupertino is still higher if we go to a fairer system.

My suggestions are not the most important things. Cupertino verified voters' voice is more important. I am glad my suggestion 1 and 2 made the top 2, which were also surpassed 55% of participated registered voters. I am quite glad with this results. The results were published here.

Another resident replied at https://pastebin.com/KD1ZUXVz. Below is the content.

The response from resident James not only lacks proper nuance, but is evidence of the lack of education relating to this subject.

Yes, trans people do represent a small portion of the population. But in the real world, chances are, more likely than not, that your child will interact with a person who identifies as such. Exposing this topic to them so they have a better understanding of the world around them is crucial for their success as they grow up.

Characterizing the increased visibility of transgender people as a 'social contagion' fundamentally misunderstands what we're observing. Consider the following analogy: Imagine if left-handedness was stigmatized and forcibly suppressed. In this situation, left-handed people didn't cease to exist—they simply hid their natural inclination. As society's acceptance grew, the recorded number of left-handed people rose dramatically, not because being left-handed was 'contagious,' but because people finally felt safe being themselves. By the time acceptance was widespread, the percentage of left-handed people stabilized at its natural rate of about 10%.
What may look like a 'sudden increase' to some is actually the unveiling of what was always present, just hidden from view. We aren't seeing more transgender people being created—we're seeing more transgender people who feel safe enough to live authentically.

The last claim is just straight up moronic. Bathroom signs are not stopping rapists and perverts. Please cite sources when making claims as bold as “rapes are clearly correlated with trans women using the women’s bathroom”.

AB 2098 is wrong in several places:

Unprofessional conducts should be treated the same, regardless of whether they are related to COVID-19 vaccines. Evaluating the long term effects of vaccines normally takes many years. It is against scientific method to say anything not align with current scientific consensus is misinformation. The vaccination/booster is still an ongoing process. It is impossible to say the current scientific consensus is settled. All vaccines have side effects. If a physician or surgeon promotes COVID-19 vaccines, and the patient is harmed by the side effects, should the physician or surgeon be hold responsible, too? Physicians and surgeons are protected by the First Amendment, too.

There are many research shows the side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines, like this one.

Cupertino Mayor Liang Chao made comment below in WhatsApp.

In my opinion, it’s a bit misleading to attribute the transition to district based election to potential attorney letters. As you might have known, FUHSD Board just decided to transition because some people were pushing for it.

The intent of CVRA was that in case there is racialized voting (people voting according to racial lines), district based election might help minorities, assuming that minorities concentrate in one district.

But that’s not the case for a racially diverse area like Silicon Valley. People here don’t congregate by race in where they live.

Splitting FUHSD into 5 districts, in fact, split up Chinese votes since there is not enough Chinese votes in any one district, similarly to ethnic groups.

Chinese voters might not all support Chinese candidates but they might support candidates who share their values on education. Splitting them up into districts, splitting up their voting power.

Some comments from the survey:

DEI has been misused to penalize Aisian and Indian kids. DEI focusses only on race and never looks at diversity of ideas and financial situation Democratic party uses race baiting to win election. DEI is not helping but hindering progress of Blacks and Latinos DEI is important. white people have built-in advantages in this society and we need to do as much as possible to level the playing field. this might feel unfair now but it is how we can root out privilege. DEI is absolutely essential to ensure diversity in workplaces. Its important that thoughts are ideas are shared from different backgrounds to ensure great/universsaly acceptable products DEI, such as race or gender equality has gone way too far. It is pushing competent people out. At this time, it is best NOT to have DEI, because it is really confusing and unfair to implement. This is social engineering. emphasizing representation at enxpense of merit is a bad idea and will lead to erosion of quality. I belong to the medical field and merit trumps all. Insufficient skills or abilities is dangerous to patient care. Abolish DEI. It’s discriminatory I think there needs to be a balanced approach to everything rather than a strict all or nothing interpretation. My belief is that balancing merit-based policies with other “community “ factors allows for a more well rounded educational community that more closely resembles our full society. merit-based is the only fair and honest method DEI policies are an indication that Americans need more open but respectful discussions about our common civil society and NOT social justice initiatives enacted by businesses or educational institutions. DEI is necessary and allows for a better representation of race, gender, ethnicities and backgrounds in the candidate pool whether it comes to colleges or workplaces. My own college and workplace experience has been a lot more fulfilling due to the diversity of people I have had a chance to study and work with. I find the backlash against DEI initiative morally reprehensible. They appear to stem from the flawed idea that everyone had the same opportunities in this country, when the data clearly shows that not to be true. DEI initiatives are unconstitutional & racist. When merit (ability) matters, there can be no justification for using criteria other than ability. Nobody wants to get on a plane piloted by a pilot who was hired for any reason other than being the best pilot. Nobody wants to drive a car designed by an engineer who was qualified by their race rather than by their car engineering ability. There is simply no justification for race conscious policies in any situation where the required criterion is merit. In my opinion, any privileges based on race, nationality, sex, religion are discriminatory and racist in nature and should be considered extremely harmful to our society and should be prohibited at the federal level. Any DEI program is dangerous to our society. All people are equal and no one should receive any advantages because of the color of their skin or sex. You are obviously engaging in bad faith. I am embarrassed by your inclusion on the school board. Teach common sense in school. Not political crap like DEI. Equity should be established early in education by helping students and families succeed in their education and not at the time of College admission or job hiring where merit should be the only consideration. DEI initiatives are vague and ill-defined. I've seen them rolled out at work, and they were top-down. There was no organic problem they were solving. Rather, after George Floyd in 2020, every institution started DEI to virtue signal. In my experience, DEI appears to serve as cover for institutions to discriminate by race/sex/etc. while denying they're doing so. The effort to bring these "initiatives" to schools, especially with young kids, is completely age-inappropriate indoctrination. Instead of using race or ethnicity the system should use economic-hardship and help those people who come from hard economic circumstances instead of helping people based on color of their skin or ethnicity or religion.