Jim was a peacemaker
It is disconcerting to see a victim of a violent crime, a man who no longer has a voice, being portrayed as an “aggressive” and “argumentative” man.
The article (“Witnesses say ridicule led to agent’s murder,” Village News, Oct. 11, page 5) regarding testimony from Mr. O’Kane clearly shows how easy it is to portray the alleged murderer as the victim and we must never forget that it is Jim Magot who was savagely murdered.
Anyone who knew Jim knew him as an excellent businessman with good moral character and strong ethical values. He was my neighbor since 1981 and in all of those years, I never heard him raise his voice or present himself in any manner such as Mr. O’Kane described Jim’s behavior the day he was murdered.
When you live next to someone for as long as I lived next to Jim, there are always issues such as pet control, fences, noise, etc. that have the potential to create conflict, but Jim was always a gentlemen in our differences and we always talked out our problems to reach a good solution.
Jim was a peacemaker.
I hope that coverage of this crime will continue and that Jim will be written about as the wonderful human being that our community knew and respected.
Penelope Mazin, Pacific Beach

Council decries pilot parking plan
The following motion was unanimously approved Oct. 4 at the regularly held and publicly noticed La Jolla Town Council October meeting:
“The La Jolla Town Council opposes the Pilot Parking Program proposed by the La Jolla Community Parking District Advisory Board and reiterates the Council’s previous and continued opposition to paid on street parking.”
Concerns that have been raised about the Pilot Parking Program during discussions at recent Town Council meetings include the following:
“¢ It is stated in the proposal that the pilot program will sunset automatically at the end of one year unless the board votes affirmatively to renew all or any part of the program based on its demonstrated success. What criteria will be used by the board to determine if the program is a success?
“¢ The Pilot Program is based on the assumption that the Parking Board will receive 80 percent of the revenue. If this does not happen, and we get less, or the usual 45 percent of meter revenue, will the Parking Board promise not to implement the program? Scott Peters says he’ll push for the 80 percent, but that has not been confirmed. Scott Peters terms out in 2008 ” what will his successor do?
A lot of questions have been left unanswered by this proposal. We are concerned that the majority of people who live, own businesses and work in La Jolla may be opposed to it and have not had their opinions heard.
Local businesses collected almost 2,000 signatures on a petition opposing paid on-street parking in La Jolla. How can the La Jolla Community Parking Board so blatantly disregard this point of view, which is held by so many members of our community?
The La Jolla Town Council respectfully requests that the La Jolla Community Parking Advisory Board consider these things when making decisions which will affect, quite possibly in a negative way, community members’ livelihoods, daily lives and the ambience of our Village.
Anne Cleveland, President, La Jolla Town Council

Double loss
Parking Board: I strongly oppose the proposed pilot parking program in downtown La Jolla.
Currently, I take my daughter to piano lessons at the Firehouse on Friday afternoons. I’ve always been able to find parking within one block of the Firehouse. Now, I’m going to be forced to pay $1.50 each time I take her to her lesson. In addition, I’m going to have to also pay to take her to Sunday School. These fees alone will lead me to consider lessons at other locations. Not only will the vendors of those lessons lose a student, but the local businesses that I frequent while she’s in her lessons will lose a patron.

Andrea Dahlberg, La Jolla

Getting the camel’s nose in the tent
Here are my comments re the paid parking plan for La Jolla:
1. The plan solves no problem. It is a scheme to put an additional tax on the residents.
2. Paid parking at Kellogg Park and areas otherwise adjacent to the beach is elitist. The San Diego community has previously rejected paid beach parking. Clairemont and University City residents will now have to pay to come to La Jolla and to their
public beaches. How will this affect their attitude towards La Jolla? Do you really think they will pay for the privilege of coming to La Jolla to shop or eat?
3. The pilot program is a hoax to get the camel’s nose in the tent. It will be impossible to evaluate, particularly the impact on those areas not included in the pilot plan. Evaluating how the plan areas are affected by the adjacent areas outside the pilot area will be impossible. However, the effect will be used in arguments by both sides.
4. It is clear the Parking Board was selected from those people having an agenda to install paid parking. It is also clear, in any fair referendum on paid parking and the pilot program, that the La Jolla Community would defeat it soundly.
David Little , La Jolla

One business, one vote
In reply to Martin Mosier’s statement that the small business owners lost the popular vote (“Incumbents carry PLJ board election,” Village News, Oct. 18, page 4), maybe the PLJ needs to change their voting rules. Surely a better representation would be one vote for each business.
I have been a resident of La Jolla for more than 20 years. I am frequently in the village of La Jolla (almost every day) at various times, and have always managed to find a parking space, maybe not directly outside the desired location but no more than one or two blocks away.
Because of the various time limits, people are always moving. I believe that most people do not tamper with the chalk marks placed by the meter maids. In addition, there are numerous underground and open parking structures in the village, and most of them are underutilized.
Many of the restaurants will validate parking for customers. Why create a problem when there is none?
La Jolla is a special community and we always have been able to provide improvements by raising private funds. The recreation center is an example. We do not need to spend money for a pilot program that is not needed or wanted by most local residents. The powerful few should not be allowed to override the wishes of the majority.
Barbara Levy, La Jolla

Don’t go this route
I wish to communicate my protest of the proposal to add parking meters at La Jolla Shores. I am a former resident and lifelong visitor to the LJ Shores. The addition of parking meters will not reduce parking; it will result in the same parking spots being occupied by vehicles, bringing in some revenue. That revenue will be offset by meter enforcement personnel, meter repair programs and court costs for people who fight their tickets (either rightfully or wrongfully, many tickets are challenged).
Please do not go this route. The situation around the Del Mar Power House is a perfect example of why the system does not work; the streets there are packed with cars regardless of the meters.

EJ Brandreth, San Diego

Help Sen. Gravel rock the debate
We are very ashamed of NBC and GE for denying Sen. Mike Gravel the right to debate on the Oct. 30 presidential debate sponsored by NBC. As you may be aware, NBC is owned by GE, and they have disqualified Sen. Mike Gravel from participating. This is an outrage and obviously a conflict of interest, breaking the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (commonly referred to as RICO Act or RICO).
Sen. Mike Gravel has earned the right through his dedicated fight for democracy to appear on any such media, especially a mass media. Arbitrary qualifications for the debate do not stand up to this law nor to freedom of speech. Help Mike Gravel speak at the NBC Presidential Debate on Oct. 30!
Tom Kovac, La Jolla

Don’t punish us for outsiders’ behavior
I do agree that it can be out of control and there can be excessive drinking on major holidays, so perhaps a rule should be passed where there is no drinking allowed on these days and these days alone.
Otherwise, there are usually no incidents, and I do not think it is fair to ban drinking for everyone who resides in the community. It has been my experience that it is those who do not live in San Diego and come on vacation or spring break that cause most of the trouble, therefore, the community who resides in Pacific Beach should not be punished for their actions.
Kristel Hitchcock, Pacific Beach