Residents, school win after track talk
On 10/18/07 you published my letter to the editor regarding closure of the La Jolla HS track to public use (page 8). Some positive developments have taken place, which might interest your readers.
Responding to public input, Mr. Shelburne, the Principal, held a public meeting on 11/1 at which he briefed us on the school’s concerns. There was near unanimity from those attending that we wished to work with the school on measured steps to maintain public access. As a result, the Principal, reopened the track during daylight hours as of 11/13, while posting clear signs regarding conditions of use. For example, runners and walkers will be expected to wear proper running shoes, use the outer lanes of the track, refrain from use during games and practices, while animals, wheeled devices such as bikes, scooters, strollers, Rollerblades and skateboards will be prohibited.
I would like to commend both the LJHS Administration and interested public for engaging in a cooperative approach to balance public access with the need to protect the facility. I urge those of us who use the track to do so responsibly, and to remind those who are not complying with these very reasonable conditions that their actions could well lead to permanent closure of this great community resource to the public. I also encourage any who have ideas or observations to either contact the Principal directly, or if you contact me, [email protected], I would be happy to share your information with those others who have expressed an interest in this matter.
Igor Grant, La Jolla

Another council failure
There they go again, wasting our money on another lawsuit! Friends of Rose Canyon won a recent award of $450,218 for legal expenses in their battle to stop the Regents Road bridge. The project itself was ill considered as was the council’s decision (Frye and Atkins excepted) to push ahead despite an environmental document that was obviously inadequate. Friends of Rose Canyon and several other environmental organizations sued and the rest, as they say, is history. Next the council for months ignored the good advice of the City Attorney to settle for less than half the final award. They then brought in outside counsel at great additional expense. The result was a total victory for the environment and another staggering loss for the City Council.
There are a few lessons that the council should have learned from this debacle:
1. The city should think twice before they ignore input about development from the local community and concerned environmentalists.
2. Those who facilitate for developers in San Diego must take the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) seriously.
3. Mr. Peters’ fellow councilors should re-evaluate the council president’s credibility on these matters. His bona fides as a former environmental lawyer (currently inactive) have not prevented an embarrassing series of expensive CEQA lawsuits that have been losers for the city.
4. Outside counsel is no panacea. The City Attorney has an annoying tendency to be correct on environmental issues (could this partially be due to his listening to the public and paying attention to CEQA) Mr. Peters should not continue to allow his rift with the City Attorney to prejudice his legal judgment.
Even if the current council does not take heed, we voters will have an opportunity in 2008 to choose four new councilors. I hope to hear from our District 1 candidates that they intend to rectify the council’s current failing approach.
Charlie Pratt, University City

Follow the money stream
My family resides in the Upper Hermosa neighborhood of La Jolla. As we don’t live close enough to The Village of La Jolla to walk in, our family drives into The Village for services on a daily basis, literally visiting dozens of establishments monthly. As a La Jolla homeowner for ten years, there is not a “parking problem” in The Village. We may have to park a block away from where we intend to obtain services, or drive around the block once, or occasionally pay to park in an existing parking lot or structure, but none of these results in a problem.
My 18-year profession in commercial real estate causes me to inherently question the motivations of commercial property owners. If the city charges for street parking, and/or creates a residents-only zone, that does create a city revenue stream. However, it creates an even greater one for commercial landlords that have parking garages and parking lot owners who rent out spaces by the hour or month. Right now, free street parking means that owners of parking garages and parking lots can only relatively charge so much, and the price of paid parking in such garages and lots in The Village has not increased dramatically over time. However, if The Village employees and visitors have to pay for street parking in the future, then owners of parking garages and parking lots will be able to demand an immediate relative increase in their hourly parking rates above what they currently receive. Exacerbating this, landlords will also see much more demand for off-street parking spaces, as all employees, and some visitors staying for more than two hours, will be forced off the street and into parking garages and lots.
Thus, with parking space supply staying constant, parking garage and parking lot owners will be able to raise prices even more as demand increases from the current demand. This is all basic economics driving this: 1) if the competition (street parking) raises its prices, the parking garage and parking lot owners can too; and 2) as demand goes up and supply does not, parking garage and parking lot owners can raise their prices even further. Consider the economic windfall to a parking garage or lot owner who has 50 parking spaces to lease, and is able to increase the parking price by $1 per hour for an eight-hour business day, Monday through Friday. That is $400 per day more in revenue, or approximately $104,000 per year of additional parking income. If that owner of the garage or lot then sells the property at a 7 capitalized value, that property owner just increased the value of their parking garage or lot by approximately $1,486,000.
I have to believe that commercial property owners, and specifically those that own parking structures and parking lots, are some of the big supporters for paid street parking in The
Village, as well as for residents-only parking zones.
Paid street parking damages business owners in The Village, although most haven’t thought it through yet when you go out and ask them. There will be higher costs to employers and customers because all of the following will occur:
“¢ employees will be forced to pay for parking, and thus employers will have to pay higher wages to offset employees’ parking costs. This will also make hiring and retaining employees in The Village more difficult.
“¢ some business owners will opt to begin paying for employee parking, resulting in higher overhead costs and less profits. Some businesses may try to get by with fewer employees.
“¢ higher wages and higher overhead costs to businesses will result in higher costs that will get passed through to consumers and visitors.
“¢ new on-street parking costs will result in additional direct costs to customers, or will force customers into paid parking garages and parking lots, increasing the cost of being a customer or visitor to The Village.
Egress and ingress into La Jolla is already challenging, so adding the cost of parking for visitors and customers creates a reason not to visit or shop in The Village of La Jolla. There are residents of La Jolla that would support less tourist and commercial traffic (those are also supporters of the paid street parking initiative), but without those visitors, the businesses cannot survive just on La Jolla’s residents alone.
Fundamentally, charging for street parking and creating residents-only parking is bad for La Jolla businesses, employees and customers.
David Marino, Principal
Irving Hughes, La Jolla

No paid parking
I am against the Pilot Program. I want no paid parking in La Jolla!
Sally Fuller, La Jolla resident since 1975

Beach alcohol as UCSD recruiting tool
I strongly oppose Council Member Faulconer’s proposal to criminalize alcohol at all San Diego beaches, parks and bays. I urge you to reject this over-reaction to one isolated incident in an otherwise problem-free year at our beaches.
I am the UCSD Graduate Student Association Vice President of Campus Affairs. I have planned over a dozen events on San Diego beaches involving alcohol. These events have helped serve the important purpose of attracting and retaining top-quality graduate students at UCSD. I agree that the beaches are out of hand during summer holidays and would support a ban on such weekends, but please keep the beaches free the rest of the year.
Griffin Brungraber, Clairemont