Callous treatment of neighbors to the east
This letter is in response to letters published in the March 23, 2006 issue of the University City/Golden Triangle News.
The recent election for board members of the University Community Planning Group should be viewed from a realistic perspective. The Regents Road Bridge, which would provide an alternate north/south artery between north and south University City, has been in the community plan since the 1960s. People who purchased property in this area, then and since, expected the bridge to be built. After Proposition 13 passed in the late ’70s and money for infrastructure dried up, a method was created by which developers in the North UC area would pay into a fund to provide for the roads, bridges, etc., needed to accommodate their construction projects: the Facilities Benefit Assessment (FBA). At that time, the Bridge and later Genesee Widening were formally included to become recipients of these funds.
Since that time, residents who live near the Regents Road corridor have been actively trying to eliminate the bridge from the community plan to protect the peace and quiet of their own neighborhoods. Genesee Avenue, meanwhile, has borne the growing traffic burden for the entire community.
In 2003, Councilman Scott Peters initiated an environmental impact study to determine the best solution for traffic and safety problems in University City with four alternatives: build the bridge, widen Genesee, do both or do neither.
Bridge opponents say they want neither the bridge nor a widened Genesee. However, their actions suggest otherwise. While most residents sat back and waited for the EIR report, well-organized opponents of the bridge went to work. First, in 2003, both at the Public Working committee established to review the alternatives and in meetings throughout the community, they pushed Grade Separation at the intersection of Governor and Genesee as the best solution. Grade separation became a fifth alternative to be studied in the EIR.
This project would require excavating an underpass beneath Governor Drive, allowing traffic in the two center lanes of Genesee to avoid the traffic signal at that intersection. This plan, with its concrete buttresses and walls, would most likely wipe out the gas stations and bus stops which presently occupy land near that intersection and would seriously degrade traffic flow due to construction for at least two years. This plan totally disregards the increased hazards for pedestrians, especially children and elderly who must cross that intersection from adjacent schools and a nearby senior complex ” and would do nothing to solve the traffic problems! This atrocity and the callousness of bridge opponents for their neighbors to the east, in order to preserve their own tranquility, spurred residents near and east of Genesee to organize UC Connection.
Secondly, bridge opponents for years have effectively and systematically stacked the UCPG board with their own sympathizers. This election year, for the very first time, bridge supporters actively ran a candidate in District 1 who would represent their interests ” Dana May. Dana said up front that he was for the bridge. After only two months of campaigning on this position, 677 residents came out to vote for him as opposed to 816 for his opponent. The candidates in Districts 2 and 3 in North UC won because they ran unopposed.
Letter writers in the March 23 issue of the GTN say this 139-vote edge sends a signal to politicians that this community of 15,000 people does not want the bridge. The only clear signal these election results sends to politicians is that people who have been quietly waiting years for the bridge are finally fighting back.
Marcia Munn, President, UC Connection
Hey politicians: listen to the people
I read with interest your front-page article entitled “UC Planning Group shows colors for bridge” (UC/Golden Triangle News, March 23). I think the headline displays an unfortunate choice of words as it indicates that the vote was “for” the bridge. I am sure that this was not the intention of your reporter as the content clearly indicates that the successful candidate, Linda Colley, is against both the bridge and widening of Genesee, and for a fire station in South UC.
A few comments would seem appropriate. I am a longtime resident of University City. I feel privileged to live close to the canyon, where I spend many happy hours walking and observing the amazing diversity of flora and fauna that abounds. I awake every morning to a symphony of birdcalls and have observed many species ” from the tiny hummingbirds and gnatcatchers through birds of prey, including owls and hawks to majestic herons. I have observed the natural wetlands come alive following rains, and would hate to see this all disappear with the proposed fill and bridge. What a loss this would be for our community! The fact that both federal and state Fish and Wildlife agencies have called for the bridge to be removed from the city plan endorses this.
I have voted many times and attended many informative meetings of the UCPG, but have never witnessed what I saw on Tuesday, March 14. Let me state at the outset that I have no problems with seniors exercising their right to vote. I am a senior myself! But when I see the elderly driven to the polling station in limousines, I wonder what information was given to them to persuade them to vote for a particular candidate and entice them out on such a cold evening. I believe that the sentiments of the residents of Area 1 were clearly expressed by the 816 to 675 votes.
I live in South UC and own a business that services contractors. My personal finances would be greatly enhanced by further development in North UC. However, I value my lifestyle and chose to live in University City because of the character of the community. I sincerely hope that this character remains.
It is clear to me from the past EIR that the correct solution to service South UC with emergency services is to build a fire station in our locality. My analysis of the traffic studies indicates that the correct solution to the traffic problems is not to draw more cars into residential areas, but to expand Interstate 5 and the 805 to accommodate increased traffic volumes.
May the politicians listen to the people.
Les Kacev, University City
One-trick-pony attitude
In response to the letters in the March 23, 2006 issue of the UC/Golden Triangle News, I wish to clarify and elaborate on a few points.
Our candidate, Dana May, did not muster as many votes as did Linda Colley. However, the huge turnout did say that a large percentage of the UC community does want the Regents Road Bridge, and this desire should be better represented on the Executive Committee of the UCPG. A year or so ago, a gentleman in favor of the Bridge ran to fill a vacancy on the board, only to be voted down by the committee because of his stance on the Bridge, even though he was the only candidate for the job. The bylaws state that diverse opinions should be represented on the committee, but that idea is constantly shunned by their “one-trick pony” attitude. In this last election, Dana May’s presence on the committee would have given UCPG a bit more balance and thereby more credibility than it has now.
Bridge opponents frequently use traffic studies to argue against the need for the Bridge. These studies have repeatedly underestimated traffic growth. In addition, the projections for 2030 assume the trolley reaches UC, the Super Loop is in place, and the Coaster makes a stop near 805 and Nobel Drive. Traffic has indeed changed since 1987. One of the referenced studies gives the total number of trips on Genesee during a 24-hour period and averages them out to arrive at numbers that give false information. They do not take into consideration the periods of horrendous gridlock in the mornings and evenings that prevent emergency vehicles from reaching their destination in time to save lives.
Opponents to the Regents Road Bridge also claim that having this bridge in place will encourage more development. We say development is already here! One needs only to attend the UCPG meetings and listen to the developers present their proposals for more building in that area to realize they could care less if the Regents Road Bridge is in place. The argument that the Bridge would help only developers is false. The people who would really be helped are the thousands of citizens of south UC who work at UCSD, at the area hospitals and medical facilities to the north, and at hundreds of other places of employment in north UC. Keeping them off the freeways would save them gas, time and money and cut down on pollution, not to mention alleviate some of the congestion on the freeways. We must also remember that the completion of Regents Road is a city project, not a University City option.
Regarding more fire stations, UC Connection is in full agreement with everyone else in this community that we need more fire/paramedic stations and that they should be built closer to our south UC neighborhood. But! We maintain that without the alternate route of Regents Road connecting us to healthcare facilities to the north, the paramedic aspect, which makes up 95 percent of emergency calls, would not be helped during periods of gridlock on Genesee. So let’s put up more fire/paramedic stations in south UC but let’s also build the Regents Road Bridge!Yes, we all love University City, which is why we are fighting to complete most of the original University Community Plan and why we all need that alternate route in case of another Cedar Fire which, as Fire Department officials have stated, would have consumed us had the wind direction not changed. To those of you who don’t want the Bridge for all sorts of perceived reasons, if San Clemente Canyon burns and closes SR52, how would you escape? All 15,000 of us in south UC would be fighting for space on east Governor and north Genesee. This is not good preparation for emergencies, be it for fire or Homeland Security issues. In light of the Cedar Fire and the recent hurricanes in the Gulf States, we are extremely foolish not to have as many escape routes as possible.
Yes, we all love University City! But we at UC Connection also love the idea of Community Balance where everyone here shares in all aspects of traffic and better circulation. Build the Regents Road Bridge!
Miriam Brown, VP, UC Connection
Consequences
My name is Tom Remillard, I am 15 years old, and I am a resident of University City, San Diego. I want to speak up, and let you know that there has been a problem with people throwing objects out of car windows in our neighborhood. I recently got caught for throwing water balloons out of my friend’s car window, and so did my friends.
I want people to know that it was a stupid thing to go do. I know that there have been many cases of kids throwing rocks at cars, which in fact killed someone.
So, I just wanted to let other kids know, that the next time you think it will be fun to throw a water balloon or any other object out or at a vehicle, think of the consequences your actions may cause, and think of the people you’re affecting.
Tom Remillard, University City
Farmers market sprouts
Thank you for starting the University City/Golden Triangle newspaper. I look forward to every issue. It is a wonderful way of keeping informed of all the wonderful things going on in our community.
University City now has its own farmers market! The grand opening of its farmers market was Saturday, April 1 at 2:30 p.m. It will be held every Saturday at Spreckels Elementary. There will be vendors selling fruits and vegetables, crepes, olives and olive oil, plus much more. I hope you were able to join us at the grand opening. Farmers markets are wonderful ways to bring people together. It is a great community builder.
Hope we will see you there and please include the farmers market in the “fortnight file” section of your newspaper.
Michele Lolly, University City
Present counts, not past
Thank you for including coverage of the March 15 candidates’ forum in the University City/Golden Triangle News (“50th Congressional District candidates address forum March 15,” March 23, page 3).
However, I have to take issue with your reporter’s method of identifying the candidates’ occupations. Some are identified with their current occupations or positions and others by former activities. For instance, Brian Bilbray is identified as “former Congressman,” when he is actually currently employed as a lobbyist in Washington. Mr. Bilbray may well advertise himself as a “former congressman” in his campaign literature (lobbyists being out of favor in the 50th Congressional District these days), but your reporter should have checked the facts before filing this story.
Elizabeth Hansen, La Jolla
Kick the litterbutts
Councilmen Peters and Madaffer are to be commended for taking a leadership role on banning smoking at San Diego parks and beaches. According to I Love a Clean San Diego (ILACSD), more than 1.8 billion cigarette butts end up littering our beautiful city annually. Cigarette butts are a major source of litter. Littering is also illegal. Additionally, about 60 percent of the butts end up in our ocean, bays, lakes and streams. Marine animals, as well as toddlers at the beach, often mistake cigarette butts for food.
As a longtime beach resident, I am tired of cleaning up after others who think the beach and our community is their ashtray. The new litter trend we are now seeing in Mission Beach is discarding the empty cigarette packages in addition to the butts on the beach.
Litterbutts are no longer tolerated in many Southern California beach and park areas. It is time for the City Council to also make our San Diego beaches and parks cleaner and healthier for all.
Kendal Wild, Mission Beach