Trashy behavior
I am writing to urge the business owners in Ocean Beach to clean up their act!
I assume they would like more visitors and customers. Do they expect people to patronize their establishments if they have to walk on filthy sidewalks and streets?
Each proprietor should consider the area in front of his or her establishment as a “front porch.” It wouldn’t take but a few minutes to clean it first thing in the morning before customers arrive. This does not mean sweeping the debris into the street, but sweeping all trash up and into a trash container.
Studies have shown that if people are surrounded by litter, they will themselves litter and dispose of their cigarettes in the same places, assuming that no one cares. Likewise, if streets and sidewalks are clean, people will look for a trashcan in which to put their litter.
Of course there are also drunks who will soil the sidewalks with unspeakable messes, but all the more reason to clean the sidewalks every day. This good example will make the Ocean Beach area a great deal more inviting “” to say nothing of a more healthy place to visit and shop.
I look forward to seeing conscientious business proprietors out with brooms, dustpans and hoses some morning soon!
Rene Phillips, Point Loma

Kroll report cost pennies in comparison
The mayor, city attorney, City Council and citizens of San Diego were appalled by the cost of the Kroll investigation. Was it really necessary to spend $20 million on such an investigation? Was the city overcharged? The mayor has retained a company to do a comprehensive study of compensation for city employees. What will the final cost of this study be and is it necessary?
Twenty million dollars was a lot of money to spend on the Kroll investigation, but where would we be without it? We still would not have financial reports capable of being completed, the IRS would revoke the tax-exempt status of the pension system and the city would be forced by the IRS to pay tens of millions of dollars back into the pension system.
“Moving forward” is what the mayor is claiming to be doing about police retention with his salary study. Mayor Sanders has allotted $250,000 for a comparison of take-home pay for city employees as compared to other municipalities.
However, the hidden costs of this survey will far surpass the price of the Kroll report. Despite already being down nearly 200 officers (10% of the entire force) “” a number that is increasing at an average of seventeen per month “” Mayor Jerry Sanders refuses to negotiate with the SDPOA to make any mid-year adjustments to stem the departure of the officers. Instead, the mayor says he will wait until next year to do anything about the contracts imposed on the officers and their exodus.
At the rate of 17 officers leaving per month, the SDPD will be down an additional 204 officers this time next year as we wait for the compensation study and meet and confer process. Although not all of those officers will be leaving for other agencies, they will all have to be replaced. It is estimated to cost $500,000 to train a journeyman officer, or $102 million just to maintain our current critically understaffed levels. For the sake of argument, should you only count the officers leaving for other agencies, the cost is $48 million. Either way you look at it, the cost far exceeds the tab for the Kroll report.
Matt Dobbs, El Cajon resident, Western Division police officer

Local votes only
The Alcohol Debate, and the only real acceptable solution. This is a very divisive issue in the beach community, and each week I get to read a litany of arguments for and against a beach ban. Each side claiming that they have a majority. The core problem is we do not have an accurate metric for what the community truly wants. Currently the metrics are letters to the editor and town council meetings. Not to disparage the town councils role in the community, but these are organizations that have voting requirements that extend beyond real voting requirements. In order to be heard you must be a paying member in good standing (more than one month). In addition what I see at these council meetings is the squeaky wheel at work. The people that are there do not represent my friends and neighbors in Mission Beach, but the weight of the council is considered substantially.
The right solution: Three years ago, the city council passed a ban, which the voters overturned. The proposition was a city-wide measure that was narrowly defeated, but resoundingly defeated in the beach community. The only way I see that will be fair to the beach is to have a measure on the ballot that reads as follows: Should there be a 24 hour alcohol ban on city beaches. Regardless of the outcome, this proposition will be up for renewal as another ballot proposition in 3 years.
If we do this, we MUST limit the voting just to District 2, our community. It is the only way we can truly measure what our district wants. Then every three years, we get to decide our fate. Not the city politicians, not other city residents. This is our backyard, and I would support whatever our neighbors voted for in a true vote, not a paid for vote at the town council level. I don’t think any reasonable person on either side of the debate could disagree.
Allen Hujsak, Mission Beach