No precedent set?
The following letter was also sent to the San Diego Planning Commission.
In the La Jolla Village News dated May 18, there is an article on the Mount Soledad cross and war memorial, and its impending removal (“Mount Soladed may face eminent domain,” page 1). On page 7 there is an article on the Congregation Adat Yeshurun’s proposal for an Eruv line. The Eruv line would have 12 poles and would … “transform the area into a private domain under Jewish law …”.
Has a precedent not been set by the cross on Mount Soledad? How can the Planning Commission consider an Eruv when the cross may very well come down? Are these not both religious symbols?
And lastly, is it not reasonable to think that there is room for both?
Ginger Franey, Pacific Beach

Enforce existing law
I took my 18-month-old toddler to Kate Sessions Park on April 18 to let him run around on the expansive grassy hills in the late afternoon. We were at the bottom of the hill and I had my back to the top as I watched my son running in front of me. A couple having a picnic nearby yelled, “Watch out!” and when I turned around a pit bull was charging down the hill directly at my son. I grabbed him and held him up as high as I could as the dog bared his teeth and barked at us. The dog’s owner was over 100 yards away. (It goes without saying the dog was not on a leash.) The dog then took off after another pit bull that was running free. The two dogs began to fight with each other as the owners cheered them on.
This same afternoon there were other children in the park as well. I consider myself and my son so lucky someone yelled out a warning. This could have ended tragically. I have since visited the park and noticed mastiffs and pit bulls not on leashes. When I informed Animal Control, I was told there is really nothing they can and/or will do about this. (There are signs posted that all dogs must be on a leash at all times.)
I did not intend to make dangerous dogs roaming free at Kate Sessions Park my cause, but it is important enough to me as a parent to make this a priority ” especially when all it involves is enforcing the existing law.
What I propose is a preventative and proactive approach:
1. Have San Diego Animal Control visit the park consistently to ticket any and all owners who do not have their dogs on a leash.
2. In addition to the signs that instruct dog owners to have their dogs on a leash, there should also be a sign with a hotline to report dog owners who are not adhering to the law.
I was so lucky that my toddler and I were not victims of an unprovoked attack by a pit bull at a public park. What if the next child and parents aren’t as lucky? It’s a scary thought ” especially since much could be done to prevent it.
Lee Silber, Mission Beach

Spin & weave
Rebecca Stanger’s response (“Pro-seal, pro-children go together,” page 9), published in your May 4 edition, to my April 20 letter (“More than an issue of seal’s rights”), is a classic example of what is known as “spin.” Not only does she summarily dismiss the legitimacy of the trust agreement, she also presumes to know exactly what Ellen Browning Scripps would be happy to do with the Children’s Pool site.
Her spin continues as she attempts to demonstrate that anyone who is for cleaning up the area and allowing full public access and use of it hates not only seals, but also children! Well, the type of spin Ms. Stanger attempts to weave is simplistic, ridiculous and contributes nothing to any reasonable discussion of this situation.
So, I would suggest to Ms. Stanger that she should get over it! And, perhaps she should try reading the Trust Agreement and other supporting documents and history of how the Children’s Pool came to be and for whom and what use it was intended for.
Charley Barringer, La Jolla

problema con miramar
There is a problem with using Miramar as our primary airport; the existing runway’s centerline, extended two times the runway’s length, passes through the north edge of Soledad Park, then continues over the center of La Jolla Country Club, and over and in line with Genter Street. Military aircraft have enough power where they now turn north and avoid following this extended centerline; commercial aircraft do not have that excess power. It is unlikely that commercial aircraft will pass the peak of Mount Soledad at a height that substantially decreases noise from their engines at full throttle during take-off. During Santa Ana conditions, a landing glide path will also pass low enough to induce headaches.
Ahora, los consultores proponen dos pistas paralelas al sur de la existente que rodearán State 52 y cruzarán Clairemont, con la línea central extendida de la pista norte pasando por encima de la intersección de La Jolla Scenic South y Soledad Mountain Road, siguiendo Gravilla Street hacia el mar. La línea central de la pista sur propuesta está justo al norte de Balboa Avenue, pero esta pista no tiene la elevación para atravesar que las otras dos tienen.
Esto es nimbyismo obvio, pero la diferencia con el terreno relativamente plano de Point Loma, que tanto ha sufrido, son las alturas significativas en la cima del monte Soledad. Si duda de la geografía, visite el monumento a los caídos, mire las alineaciones y observe qué tan alto está. Sí, es posible que tengamos que quitar la cruz y quizás algunas antenas, pero por una razón completamente diferente a la del litigio.
Zack Hayman, La Jolla

Buy, don’t steal from Navy
The Regional Airport Authority, instead of trying to steal Miramar from an uncooperative Navy, might offer to buy it.
Instead of considering $15 billion to build a high-speed train to somewhere or nowhere, offer $15 billion to the Navy. Instead of looking at new sites that will cost $10-$20 billion to develop, see if Adm. William Guest was right. See if the military, given the constraints imposed by Congress on military capital spending, would be more receptive to selling facilities, as the admiral said, for enough money to build state-of-the-art facilities on dirt cheap land elsewhere.
At one time, the Federal Airport Trust Fund (AATF) had more than enough money to pay for a new airport for San Diego. Maybe the trust fund still has some money left for San Diego to help pay the military for Miramar.
Fred Schnaubelt, Former City Councilman

It’s simple: we’re flat out
The San Diego airport issue can be presented as a news item that would appear to the reader as recent. As a San Diego native of 59 years, I would like to comment on this high priority issue. The airport was never designed for the traffic we have today. During WWII, the runway was built some 8-feet-thick to accommodate bombers, such as the B24 and later the B36.
Lighter commercial aircraft were few in comparison to today. For at least 59 years, San Diego has had vast land available to build a large airport. Year after year, the developers pushed politicians towards hotels, motels, shopping centers and housing projects to include golf courses and parks. Now we are flat out of enough land ” it’s that simple.
Taking the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot would not even come close to a second runway, but it could make more developers money for hotels and a few houses or maybe a shopping center. Don’t be fooled by the people who say they are looking into the airport issue and the millions of needless dollars spent to search. North, South and East Counties are out, period.
We need to use the existing runway for short flights in California and to other cities in California for connections to flights to other states and overseas. This worked with no problem in the earlier years and will work now.
Paul Daughtery, Ocean Beach

Please correct misinformed opinions
I realize everyone is entitled to his or her opinion even when demonstrably in error. My question to you is, “Why don’t you address these errors?” This can be done unobtrusively by using a timely trailer comment at the end of a letter.
Leaving untrue or exaggerated comments in the “Letters to Editor” section is a disservice to your readers since it implies comments are correct. For instance, Ms. Stranger’s letter of 4 May (“Pro-Seal, Anti-Children go together,” page 9) makes several incorrect statements
“Harbor seals have lived in this very area since the late 1800s, and even long before that In the early 1900s humans came in and started killing them off, since they were seen as competition to fishermen and not here when Ellen Browning Scripps had the wall built.”
One can’t say much about when the seals were here though it’s likely they predate any human activity in California. This is an uninformed opinion which is obviously true. However, there are people still living in La Jolla who were present when the Children’s Pool breakwater was completed. There were seals in La Jolla then. There were seals when city engineers developed the first property maps of La Jolla. There have probably been seals in La Jolla for the last hundred millennia! It would have been easy for you to add “there were seals in La Jolla when the Children’s Pool seawall was completed.”
Ms. Stranger states, “Since they were driven to near extinction in this area”. This is also wrong. Yet the impression is left they were intentionally hunted (they were not) to point at which their existence was threatened (they were not).
Although an aside, one might inquire if Ms. Stranger has read the Marine Mammal Protection Act in its entirety, especially section 109(h). This is the section which allows government officials to displace marine mammals under specific conditions, conditions that exist at the Children’s Pool.
We then have Mr. Campbell’s letter of the same date (“You could get sick,” page 9). It is so rambling that I am surprised you published it. The central thesis here is that fecal coliform contamination is universal and the seals are not the cause of the elevated contamination levels found at Children’s Pool. He asks, rhetorically, “Has anybody ever analyzed Children’s Pool waters fully”? Your response could have been, “Yes. The Children’s Pool water and sand has been thoroughly analyzed using DNA as a tracer. The contamination at the Children’s Pool is definitely from the resident seals.”
Let people have their opinions. Just don’t add the authority of your publication to erroneous information.
David W. Valentine, La Jolla