Scripps Park plan is disturbing
One part of the proposed plan by Campbell and Campbell (and why is it a non-local firm) for renovations at Scripps Park disturbs me considerably. That is the plan to move the small Bridge Club building. In its present location, it seems almost to have “grown into” the area, and is quite unobtrusive. Moved to the suggested space, it would be totally noticeable from any angle.
Would the relocation of that little building also necessitate the removal of any of the well-established trees? Some of them are survivors of a severe windstorm in 1936 that knocked down several lovely old trees ” I believe they were Monterey cypresses.
And still one more concern. At a time when our City is in financial troubles, why spend money this way? If a thing is not broken, it doesn’t need to be fixed ” but many other things desperately do need fixing in our city!
Ellen C. Revelle, La Jolla

Take a principled stand
The following is a copy of a letter to District 1 City Councilman Scott Peters.
Please do not insult those who believe in the cross remaining where it is by indicating the cross “can just be moved.” If the effort to save the cross fails, the cross should be destroyed on the spot and not moved. Saying it can be moved is an easy way out and political doublespeak for those who are complicit in this travesty to escape their responsibility and clear their duplicitous consciences. Mr. Peters, you will not be able to have it both ways. Take a principled stand; either you are for the cross remaining where it is, accompany that stand with whatever action necessary or side with those who want it destroyed.
What is the difference between having the Soledad cross destroyed and the iconic Buddha destroyed by Taliban zealots in 2001? Is it the age of the monument? Is it on public land? Maybe it’s because it’s just a Christian symbol? At the time of Buddha travesty, the Taliban spokesman said, “We would repeat to them as we have to other delegations that we are not going to back away from the edict, and that no statues in Afghanistan will be spared.”
The members of the La Jolla community who erected this monument a half-century ago possessed many of the same characteristics that the people who chiseled the Buddha centuries ago did. They were both deeply committed to erecting a monument dedicated to expressing their beliefs. Both stood as a testament to their place in history and future generations marveled at their accomplishments. The zealots in our society today, who want the cross destroyed, sound much like the Taliban, we will “not back away from the edict and that no crosses in America will be spared.”
After the destruction of the Buddha monument by the Taliban, a UN [United Nations] spokesman said, “It is abominable to witness the cold and calculated destruction of cultural properties which were the heritage of the Afghan people.” Then as now, officials like you, Mr. Peters, stood idly by as ACLU zealots in San Diego set out to destroy a cultural and historic icon. Maybe a future UN spokesman will say, “It is abominable to witness the cold and calculated destruction of cultural properties which were the heritage of the San Diego people.” How pathetic. What a perversion of our Constitution.
Mr. Peters, we know that you are beginning to look for the next office. That is great. That’s what politicians do. But please do not think for one minute that your inaction at this time will go unnoticed or forgotten.
Mark Skeen, La Jolla

Airport’s window would open wider
At Lindbergh, due to coastal weather conditions and the number of residents, we have a takeoff and landing ban, prior to 6 a.m. or after 10 p.m. Now move the airport to Miramar. No residents to the east, so for sure no landing ban. But note we cannot get planes out of Miramar and the property to the immediate west is commercial or apartments so we can start earlier or even depart later?
La Jolla, Clairemont and UTC, pay attention.
Wayne Miller, La Jolla

Marine mammal domino effect?
First the sacred Children’s Pool, now the sacrosanct Windansea surfing beach!
On Wednesday, the 31st of May, at around 7:30 p.m., people in the vicinity of Windansea Beach were roused by loud and persistent aquatic barking. This drew many of the curious to investigate, and rewarded us with quite a good show.
Two fairly large black sea lions floated several yards from the shoreline near the stairway at Rosemont. Soon, they body-surfed right up to the sand, then frolicked about. I think many of us hoped they would stay for some time, as we phoned others, shared the barking, and snapped photos. The sea lions’ visit was brief. They hurled themselves back into the waves and proceeded to drift towards Palomar, perhaps to visit another beach. Their barking continued, forcefully alerting the neighborhood to their presence.
Does this portend another contentious embroilment for the residents of La Jolla as we contemplate the next incursion of native aquatic mammals? I wonder how quickly the territorial surfers will organize to oust the native invaders! And, will the threat of sharks follow? The summer of 2006 could heat up quickly.
Cynthia A. Bond, La Jolla

Swat this ‘March to Miramar’
The “Act now on airport site” letter to the editor in your last week’s issue (Village News, June 1, page 8) is certainly appropriate and raises good points about problems with Miramar as San Diego’s airport.
But it misses key items that are most devastating when the rights of citizens under the flight paths are considered. Some pretty awful offense is being contemplated. The Regional Airport Joint Use Plan sound profiles are for arriving aircraft, as is presumably also their calculations of people affected, some 10,765 homes. Arriving aircraft are in a descending powered glide, the quietest time of their flight. The problem is the departing aircraft. They are at full takeoff power. Hence the maximum noise offense is then for people on the ground near the flight paths. These will be like double or triple in the homes under the departure paths. Is there intentional deceit here?
The Seawolf departure from Miramar was adopted about 30 years ago after multiple complaints from La Jolla homeowners and UCSD about noise from Miramar fighter airplanes flying over. Seawolf is a Miramar climbout over Sorrento marshes to the north, requiring two 90-degree climbing turns. Fighter aircraft can do it. It moves their noise over less occupied land.
But the point is that the wide-body passenger aircraft, even current models, can’t use Seawolf. On departure for long flights such as Honolulu and Japan, a 747 has to load 40 tons of fuel plus passengers, baggage and freight. These loaded aircraft can’t make the climbing turns required by Seawolf. Even a lightly loaded military C-5 can’t do it without dangerously losing maneuverability. This isn’t in the cards either for new passenger aircraft. The European A380 now beginning service weighs 300 tons, unloaded. It has 8,000 nautical-mile range and requires upward of twice the 40-ton fuel load of the 747, also with over 600 passengers and their equipage. Immense takeoff power from its four 70,000-lb. thrust engines will blow the rocks off the hillsides.
The proposed new runways they will have to use are aimed at Mt. Soledad in La Jolla. The flight path is right over residences already built in North Clairemont, Kearney Mesa, UTC and along Miramar Road all the way to 805. Just look to your right and left as you drive along Miramar Road and La Jolla Village Drive, a two-lane blacktop when Miramar was built, now four and six lanes, plus Route 52 freeway a bit south. Most of this development has occurred in the last ten years. The home owners, easily 30,000 people, not to mention hotels, business and high rises, will be subject to nerve-wracking noise overhead at any and all times. Property values, land and tax revenues will go down. Unbelievable unfairness will be cited. This building was done before the cabal of developers’ campaign to break the piãata at Lindbergh so they can sweep up the goodies there. The Class Action lawyers will love this.
Now, another thing. To train pilots to land on aircraft carriers as is done at Miramar requires lots of territory without any people underneath. The noise is one thing and the danger from new pilots in powerful aircraft is another. Field Carrier Landing Practice is a grand circle over vacant territory provided when Miramar was converted for jet aircraft years ago by buying the land up to 15,000 feet south of the present runways. This home of vernal pools and wild life freedom will be sacrificed in the new plan. The Field Carrier Landing Practice at Miramar for replacement air groups is wedged in where it will compete for air space with present Miramar traffic plus commercial aircraft.
Indeed, fellow citizens, do wake up and swat this “March to Miramar” down before it even gets to a vote in November! Send the advocates home and look at the two other reasonable options for a new San Diego airport that have been stuffed in the background on behalf of the developers.
Robert. R. Campbell, La Jolla