U-T ‘unscientific’ endorsement didn’t bother with research The Union-Tribune endorsed Prop. D the article/endorsement takes this stand using what it claims as “unscientific observation.” What? Can I just open my window and look around and write an endorsement…. no research, no phone calls, no interviews? That’s interesting. I guess my SDSU journalism teacher was wrong. Darn state schoolz! The endorsement goes on to state that because of the trial ban, it might hurt local businesses (they didn’t bother to interview local business owners for that part either). Small businesses pay taxes and the hotels generate tax revenue as well (I wouldn’t know how much and the fiscal benefit because I’m from the U-T school of journalism). It has been reported that beach traffic is down 50 percent. This dramatic decrease has crippled already struggling mom-and-pop shops in the area. Go ahead and make your own observation and ask them. We should demand more from one of our city’s papers and more from our local government. In the same endorsement, it goes on to state that it’s regrettable that the few ruin it for the majority that drink alcohol responsibly on our beaches. Why? Why do the few have to ruin it for the majority? Is this what San Diego has become? The few control the majority? I won’t accept this solution and neither should you. Vote no on Prop D and demand a solution that works with the local businesses and maintains San Diego as a major tourist destination. San Diego is not like Orange County (they went bankrupt, oh, wait…) and we aren’t like Los Angeles. Let’s keep it that way. Let us keep our freedom, especially during these trying times. As a resident of San Diego and after my own “unscientific observation,” we need a balance, a compromise. After all, we deserve it. After paying my ever-increasing mortgage, my home value plummeting, and not to mention my stock portfolio on life support, all I have left is enough to afford a cheap glass of wine on the beach. Please don’t take that away too. Jared Schulz Golden Hill RV owners:?there’s plenty of motorhome storage facilities Some of your RV-owning readers seem to find it fine to park in front of their houses so long as they move their vehicles every 72 hours. My neighborhood is full of RV owners who play the game of moving their RVs around the corner every three days to avoid a ticket. They are all missing the point. The streets are for public use, not for private recreational vehicle storage. Using a private lot made for this purpose, on the other hand, will solve the problem. In one second Google gives you a list of parking lots and vehicle storage areas to keep our streets RV-free and make room for those of us that need to park cars on the street to go to work, take our kids to school, buy groceries, etc. (I’ll even list three of them to help you: Ace parking on Friars Road, La Mesa RV Center and Mission Bay RV resort.) And for those of you who prefer a more tangible research tool, the Yellow Pages also provide information (under “Recreational Vehicles” and “Park: Toy Storage,” for example). Now, if money is an issue, Craigslist.org lists dozens of people offering cheaply priced off-street RV storage. RV owners must understand that our streets are not for private vehicle storage and that there are many options available to them for safe, off-street parking. Christian Winkle Pacific Beach