Councilman’s constituents appreciate him
The continuing scurrilous attacks (Letters, Aug. 24, 2006) on Scott Peters’ integrity for approving the construction of Regents Road Bridge reveal more about the writers than about the councilman. If they truly believe wealthy developers were behind his decision, their heads have been in the sand for the past several years.
Most of the community recognizes the absurdity of these accusations. If developers had wanted the bridge, it would have been built 30 years ago. The truth of the matter is this: thousands of UC residents want the bridge and have worked hard for the past two and a half years to finally bring to light the logic, wisdom and common sense of this project.
The decision to support the bridge, by Scott Peters and five of his colleagues, was based on testimony presented by public safety officials, transportation experts and residents of this community, not by developers. For six years, Scott Peters has worked hard to improve the quality of life in University City as well as other parts of his district. When he recommended the bridge project, he added an extra $4 million for the protection and enhancement of Rose Canyon. By so doing, he demonstrated his concern for the well-being and safety of all residents.
One letter writer asserts that District 1 residents should initiate a recall of Peters, while another suggests that Peters would never again get the support of District 1 voters in any future bid for office. Who appointed these people spokespersons for this District? What arrogance to believe their opinions transcend those of the 4,000-plus residents who signed petitions to build the bridge! Many of Councilman Peters’ constituents appreciate his hard work, integrity and fairness. If looking for votes in the future, he will have plenty of support from District 1.
Is it not time for this community, north and south, east and west, to convene in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill? This combined energy could produce many positive results. We can begin by joining forces to keep Miramar free of a commercial airport!
Marcia Munn, University City

Yay for intestinal fortitude
Many residents in University City are deeply grateful that Scott Peters and five other members of the City Council voted to build the Regents Road Bridge. We have been waiting for years for a representative in District 1 with the fortitude to study this project and make a decision based on facts rather than the hysterical ranting of the bridge opponents.
This bridge will solve so many of our traffic and safety problems, and will have few long-term negative impacts on a canyon that also contains sewer and power lines as well as railroad tracks. The entire community will share the traffic, just as city officials originally planned, instead of unfairly placing the entire burden on central and east UC.
Like spoiled little children, bridge opponents now threaten to sue the city. It is sad they cannot face reality and join the rest of the community.
Janet Newman, University City

One more view of the Rose Canyon Bridge
If there is a problem in medicine or dentistry, it’s important to do a differential diagnosis to ascertain cause. There have been attempts to do just that because of excessive Genesee traffic, our local traffic problem.
Complaints from the east side of Genesee in UC are understandable, even by a NIMBY like me, who lives on the west side of UC. The "Easterners" want a bridge over Rose Canyon connecting Regents Road from the south to the north. The "Westerners" don’t want this bridge because of obvious effects on the quietude and environment of their neighborhood and on Rose Canyon natural habitat. "Westerners” have been perceived to be simply selfish and insensitive. Despite the wisdom of our mayor and City Council, who’ve approved the bridge, wisdom professed on a daily basis in all city matters, is still a highly questionable "cure."
There are two causes for the traffic problem. The first is the overbuilding of North UC around UTC, which continues. There is no disagreement here between "Easterners" and "Westerners."
The second problem, which has not been addressed to my knowledge, are the traffic lights on Genesee. Rather than select a particularly congested time of day, like early morning or evening rush hour, or the two-hour luncheon part of the day, I began my auto trip from Route 52 to Route 5 around 10 o’clock in the morning, when there was very little traffic. Fourteen stoplights later, I finally arrived at Route 5.
There were few times when I could catch two green lights in a row, as I traveled north on Genesee. It was stop and go on Genesee when there was hardly any traffic. One could build 10 bridges over Rose Canyon, and it wouldn’t have made any difference on my trip or facilitated it. The east-west streets crossing Genesee and Genesee itself have pavement-sensitive grids, which trigger stoplights. If there were no traffic on these east-west streets, which is usually not the case, then you’d have a chance to catch several green lights in a row on Genesee. Please indicate how my trip could have been speedier with a Regents Road Bridge in place.
The need for these cross streets is obvious: so civilians can get to and from an overly developed neighborhood. This overbuilding, our common cause of complaint, has not been curtailed. Regents Road, if the bridge is built, will most likely become another Genesee. Sadly, the "Easterners" have not had their complaint mitigated, since the two problems of overbuilding and the need for 14 stoplights have not been addressed. The "Westerners" now can share woefully with the new Regents Road that’s planned in the same sort of predicament that "Easterners" have with Genesee. The ultimate irony is that the 11th stoplight on Genesee, as one proceeds north to Route 5, is Regents Road, which is now pouring its traffic into the very street which it was supposed to help. It will be too late to "unbuild" the "bridge," which instead of helping the community has in fact separated it. Oh, yes, $36 million will have been wasted.
Dr. Ernie Lippe, University City

Thanks to guardian angel
Several weeks ago while riding my electric cart through the parking lot at the swimming pool on Governor Drive and Mercer Street, my vehicle suddenly jumped into high gear, throwing me out onto the pavement on my back. I was dazed and unable to get up when a car drove up and the driver rushed over to pull me up onto my feet.
The three-wheeler had jumped the curb and become stuck so we were unable to get it back on the sidewalk.
The lady (I called her my guardian angel) told me to stay by the cart while she went into the office at the pool to get help. She returned with a young girl and the three of us got the three-wheeler onto the sidewalk to I could get home.
I’m hoping you will print this so everyone living in beautiful University City will have one more reason to be thankful we reside in this community.
Our neighbors go out of their way to help one another. Without these two ladies, I don’t know what I would have (don’t want to even guess) done.
My heartfelt thanks to the ladies who came to my aid.
Mary E. Eickhoff, University City

Can’t have it both ways
In a recent public document “Airport Authority Answers Commentary,” Thella F. Bowens, president/CEO of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, made some interesting, however conflicting statements, a few of which I’d like to comment on.
In the last sentence of the first paragraph, Ms. Bowens states, ” “¦ it is unknown at this point if relocation of these freeways would ultimately be necessary.” OK, that’s great, let us make some assumptions, which will be justified later. Let’s move the two proposed commercial runways so the east ends align with east end of existing military runways. Then we will slide the proposed commercial runways in a northerly direction until the north proposed commercial runway coincides with the longest military runway. The south proposed runway is now approximately 2,000 feet from the freeway, which will have incoming aircraft at an altitude on the order of less than 200 feet. Does this require freeway relocation? Looking at a map, one will note I-15 curves to the east and back as it passes the existing military runway. The Airport Authority after three years and about $17 million says they don’t know the runway location or if the freeways have to be moved. Yet, they want us to vote for their proposed scheme any way. That just doesn’t make sense.
In paragraph four, she says, ¦ If only civilian aircraft were flying out of Miramar “¦” which indicates the desire of the Airport Authority to force the Marines out of MCAS Miramar. Later in her summary, she says, “There is no attempt by the San Diego Country Regional Airport Authority to move the military out of Miramar.” Which is it? However, she does validate our assumptions made above on moving the proposed commercial runways.
In the final paragraph, first sentence, it is stated, “In summary, there is no attempt by the San Diego Country Regional Airport Authority to move the military out of Miramar.” Sure! However this statement is in conflict with the statement made earlier, “if only civilian aircraft were flying out of Miramar.” Which is it? We can’t have it both ways or are these conflicting statements intentionally made in an attempt to mislead voters? Remember the chair of the Site Selection Committee has stated publicly that joint use won’t work. Then why is it on the ballot?
In regard to the last sentence of paragraph 12, it states, ¦ potential adverse impacts to endangered species require mitigation measures.” I am sure Ms. Bowens and other authority members attended the recent forum on Aug. 17 at Scripps Ranch High School where the Marines showed the high density and location of endangered species and sensitive areas. This density would make the mitigation risky and costly with a low probability of success.
There are more points Ms. Bowens made we could comment on but we will save those for another time.
Gene Perusse, University City

Floating airport could fly
I want to compliment the vision of Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s Dr. Walter Munk and UCSD Jacobs School of Engineering’s Dr. Frieder Seible for a floating airport off San Diego harbor (“Scholars float idea for airport,” UC/Golden Triangle News, Aug. 24, page 1). This is a great concept paired with a MAGLEV train connecting Lindbergh Field to Camp Pendleton, John Wayne Airport, Long Beach Airport and LAX.
General Atomics could produce this work product. We have been at war since 9/11 and it is imperative that we do not compromise our military assets. The War on Terror has not ended and may further escalate on the global stage. Please let the decision makers know at the ballot box that the highest and best use for Lindbergh Field has far from been achieved.
Let’s preserve our quality of life, the sounds of freedom (F-18s et al) from Miramar are far better than 24/7 commercial jets over 92037.
Edward Mracek, La Jolla