Thumbs down on vote against year-round rope On Sept. 17, for a second time, the city’s Planning Commission denied a year-round rope barrier to protect the harbor seals at La Jolla’s Children’s Pool. A Superior Court appeal had questioned the “cursory”grounds for denial of the perpetual rope over a year ago and remanded the issue back to the commissioners for a reconsideration. In the interval, the Coastal Commission approved the measure with stipulations that the efficacy of the rope be evaluated for three years of extensive monitoring by a park ranger. For the present, the rope will be placed only during the crucial five months of the pupping season. A short section at the foot of the stairs will not be roped off, in deference to those wanting to access the water. With or without the rope, people willfully desiring to harass the seals are not being cited, in spite of clear signage detailing that it is a felony to cause any disturbance to a marine mammal in any way. People against the seals’ presence use the beach at all times, claiming that the ill-defined “shared use” policy carries no prohibitions on use. One would question why this appointed Planning Commission has such authority to reverse decisions made by our duly-elected district representatives on the City Council. Why also does the commission find the seasonal pupping season rope meets the requirements of the La Jolla Local Coastal Plan while a year-round extension does not? This sounds like a challenge for the City Attorney’s Office to sort this one out. Ellen Shively
La Jolla?Friends of the Seals

Writer suggests doing more homework To Mr. Whittemore and your list of “Ghost Writers” Grace McCormack, Myrna Naegle, Dick McCormack, Hetty De Jong, La Jolla Shores Tomorrow and Save La Jolla: At the risk of sounding brash, I anticipated responding to your overdue letter to the editor weeks ago. I now find it impossible, however, to retort intelligently to a letter full of dishonesty and deceitfulness. Therefore, as an alternative, I offer the following response and corrective criticism to your recent letter to the editor; (i) In the future, prior to writing a counterpoint of view to a letter in our community paper, read the original letter first (see the original letters online at http://www.lajollaassociation.com/in-la-jolla-shores-its-do-what-we-say-not-what-we-do/ and http://www.lajollaassociation.com/in-district-1-its-who-you-know-not-whats-right-or-wrong/). Read it several times if you must, be sure you comprehend the issues and the facts outlined in the letter. Do not distort what you’re reading. Attempt to put your thoughts in a coherent, logical and rational outline before responding, otherwise your rambling rhetoric, unfocused and self-serving logic is extremely transparent to both the readers and the community. Be timely. Don’t wait a month before sharing your point of view with the community. By delaying your response it appears in actuality you have nothing of importance to contribute to the community. (ii) (ii) If your goal is to persuade a reader and the community to acknowledge your point of view, you have an obligation to be truthful and specific. Identify your sources, use actual names and not innuendos. State only the facts. Your unrelenting distortion of the details has only hurt your creditability in the community. (iii) More importantly don’t speak for others. It appears to the community you are trying to shield someone. In this case, Ms. Sherri Lightner is certainly capable of responding for herself. If she chose not to respond during her re-election campaign, that is her choice, not yours. Oh, by the way, Mr. Whittemore, our environmental impact report is being prepared and we can’t wait to hear your well-thought-out public comments. Bob and Kim Whitney
La Jolla

Column on hazing gives off the wrong message I take exception to Natasha Josefowitz’s strangely detached tone in her column today (Sept. 27 LJVN, Page 10) on hazing, a cruel practice that ought never be condoned by adults and that children should be taught from an early age to shun — either as a perpetrator or as an approval-seeking victim. She appears to condone reprehensible human behavior. I read the column with interest, waiting for a single word of disapproval of a practice that is inherently primitive, sadistic and debasing for the perpetrator(s) and masochistic and humiliating for the victim — and sometimes deadly, as well. There was no mention of the fate of the Florida A&M University drum major who was beaten to death by drumsticks in his school’s marching band bus last fall. This was institutionalized hazing, a known rite of passage to “acceptance” into that school’s marching-band culture, freely undertaken by everyone involved. Today, 13 band members are on trial for murder. Josefowitz says, “There are many creative ways to … gain acceptance into the desired group,” among them are “patience and tolerance, keeping a cool head … maintaining a sense of humor and … being low key.” She concludes that hazing “can be endured and membership will eventually follow. Being forewarned will make the hazing bearable, perhaps even fun.” Emphatically, I think not. Frances O’Neill Zimmerman
La Jolla