Dispelling the myth
I’m sure that you will report on the University Community Planning Group (UCPG) election and the very hotly contested race for the Resident 1 seat, in which Linda Colley defeated Dana May by a vote of 816 to 675 (54.6 percent to 45.4 percent). What is of particular importance to many community residents is Mr. May’s efforts to make the election a referendum on the Regents Road Bridge.
In a letter posted prominently on UCConnection’s Web site, a group which supports the bridge, Mr. May stated: “I’ve knocked on hundreds of doors all over South University City in the past five weeks that we’ve spent signing up people to vote in the March 14 election, and almost everyone wants the Bridge built. If there were a referendum on the Bridge in our community, I feel it would pass “¦ This vote for the UCPG seat is the closest we’ll ever come to a vote on the Bridge, because the City Council will make the decision and it might be as soon as this year.”
If, as Mr. May suggests, the vote in the UCPG election was a referendum on the bridge, the residents of South UC said NO in a fairly convincing fashion. And at the same time residents of South UC were opposing the bridge, residents in north UC selected three additional representatives who also oppose the Regents Road Bridge.
I hope these results begin to dispel the myth that the majority of residents in University City are anxious to put a four-lane roadway and bridge through Rose Canyon Open Space Park. Although a determined minority of residents who live near Genesee Avenue believe they can avoid the impact of increased development by moving traffic into the canyon, the reality is most residents in University City clearly understand that the only way to protect our community from increased traffic congestion is to enforce sensible limitations on development in north UC.
Scott Olson, University City

The people have spoken
Last Tuesday’s University Community Planning Group (UCPG) Executive Board election for Resident District 1 (South UC) was truly astounding and is sure to draw the attention of City Council President Scott Peters and his fellow councilmembers. In what must be a record for San Diego local planning group elections, 1,493 people came to the polls ” a 57-percent turnout of eligible voters. What motivated so many people to stand in long lines on a cold March evening?
The election was largely seen as a proxy referendum on the Regents Road Bridge project. The losing candidate, Dana May, ran on the single issue of supporting the bridge, despite the fact that every traffic study to date has shown the bridge would be an ineffective remedy for peak hour congestion on Genesee Avenue. The winner and current UCPG Chair, Linda Colley, presented a much broader platform, which included safeguarding the interests of residents and fighting against harmful overdevelopment in North UC. She is also leading the effort to bring a badly needed fire station to South UC.
And in opposing both the Regents Road Bridge and Genesee Avenue widening projects, she rightly recognizes that these expensive boondoggles will only serve to legitimize further overdevelopment, while harming our own community and threatening the timely completion of other, more urgently needed road projects.
Bridge proponents have for years insisted that opposition to the bridge is limited to a handful of homeowners on the west side of South UC ” a specious claim belied by the 816 votes cast for Ms. Colley, not to mention the strong anti-bridge sentiment among North UC residents also expressed last Tuesday. The vote was a signal that residents of University City care deeply about their community, and are acutely concerned over unbridled development which diminishes their quality of life.
And now let the politicians listen, for the people have spoken.
Daniel Arovas & Tom Remillard, UC Golden

Provision of services the prime factor
I am writing concerning your article “Mystery solved: Who really lives in La Jolla?” (UC/Golden Triangle News, March 9, page 5). Your correspondent does not understand how the boundaries of an independent La Jolla will be decided upon. City of San Diego-drawn community planning areas and U.S. Postal Services ZIP codes will have little bearing on the final boundary.
The state law that governs special reorganizations, which an incorporation of La Jolla would be, gives complete discretion to the Local Agency Formation Commission to determine boundaries. To get the process started, the proponents of reorganization must summit a proposed boundary to the commission. The decision on the final boundary will be made by the San Diego County LAFCO at a public hearing where any organization, or individual, will have equal standing with the proponents to propose alternative boundaries to the commission.
In preliminary discussions between members of Independent La Jolla and San Diego LAFCO staff, the only guidance staff could provide is that their recommendation to the commission on where boundary should be will be based on what staff thinks makes sense from the viewpoint of the efficient provision of services.
Your article also contains two errors. The Hyatt Regency La Jolla is not in the 92037 ZIP code, and in 1963 La Jolla could not have “crept into” a not yet existing University City. It is closer to correct to say when the City of San Diego created community plans and community planning associations, portions of La Jolla were put in the University City Community Planning Association’s area.
Richard Smith, La Jolla

Reverse discrimination
Scott Peters announced that he is in favor of installing a Jewish fence, or an Eruv, around the Village of La Jolla. This pandering for the Jewish vote is an odious example of reversed discrimination. The Jewish community has been heard to complain that it was previously excluded from living in La Jolla. If true, that was wrong.
However, the Jewish community is now amply represented. It has since constructed three synagogues in the neighborhood. There is now no such prejudice. However, it has adversely asserted itself in the community in three ways. First, it wishes to construct a student center in this residential community, upon Site 653. Site 653 is city open space, too small to accommodate the size of this proposed project which is to contain a restaurant. Such a project is not contemporaneous with a residential neighborhood. There is insufficient parking space to accommodate a student center with a restaurant in a residential neighborhood. In addition, Site 653 has always been reserved as city “open space.” It was never meant to be for high density development.
Secondly, in anticipation of that project’s approval, the Jewish community has converted a nearby private home into non-conforming office space and car park for this student center.
Thirdly, the Jewish community wishes to encircle much of the village of La Jolla with an Eruv, a religious fence, consisting of interconnected 20-foot-tall metal poles. This will place much of La Jolla within “a designated Jewish territory,” known as “a shtetl.” This “reverse discrimination” is the product of a politician’s pandering for votes and the chutzpa of the Jewish community.
A.P. Winter, La Jolla

Take a little with you
Ahh! America’s Finest City. And many of us claim to live in the finest community in America’s Finest City. But, as I commute and travel around University City I see way too much trash and litter on the shoulders and in the streets.
Some of this is from open trucks with trash in the back that flies out as they drive around. Some of it is because of people coming into the community every day have little pride; no doubt some is deposited by our own locals.
There isn’t really much that anyone can do to prevent this. Trash happens. As I walk around areas of University City I see dozens, perhaps a few hundred other “walkers.” I suggest that as we walk we take a plastic bag with us and pick up a few pieces of trash each time out. Let’s restore the area to a pristine condition and make our community truly one of the finest in America’s Finest City.
Maurice L. Loucks, University City