Reverse the approve-all development policy
Scott Peters has not taken a position on the Monte Verde skyscrapers across from UTC. He claims that he needs to review the environmental impact report. Such a report is intended to uncover potentially unknown impacts on the environment. But what about the obvious fact that the community itself is so strongly opposed to overdevelopment?
With the Rose Canyon bridge controversy the residents were divided and it appeared that certain business interests broke the "tie" and Mr. Peters voted for the bridge after months of silence. Monte Verde is an issue of one developer versus the community. Which side will Mr. Peters favor this time? He needs to speak up.
Mr. Peters has continually pointed out that much of the overdevelopment of the community was approved prior to his election to City Council. This is his opportunity to reverse the approve-all-development policy of his predecessor.
John Lee Evans, University City
Looking for a real public process
Last week, two letters to the editor attempted to marginalize the letters previously written pointing out problems with the Bird Rock form-based code. I find it very interesting the two points Mr. Peters makes. First, he elaborates on how open and public it’s been thus far. I agree. It has been a public process, however the process has been ill-fated from the start.
This process was carefully orchestrated with a now obvious agenda ” get three stories and reduce the retail space that is required. You need only to look at previous newspaper articles written by Mr. Peters to see the similarities between what he wanted a year ago and what the FBC contains today. Secondly, he debunks what he calls a false rumor about FBC applying outside of Bird Rock.
If you read on, he states that he hopes the process can be replicated elsewhere in La Jolla. As we all know, once something is approved, the precedent is set. Talk about your elephant in the room!
As long as our Council District Representative and his development interest parties are sitting eagerly on the sidelines, I for one will not ignore that elephant in the room. We in La Jolla need to wake up and smell the coffee. It’s a wicked brew!
Cindy Thorsen, La Jolla
Opposition to the slow bleed plan
In Iraq, I concede that people are dying. That is what happens in war. However, with many friends and family deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, I feel that any attempt to surreptitiously hamstring our efforts to decrease popular support for our presence in Iraq is foolish and trading soldier’s lives for political points. If Congress cannot openly act on such a broad proposal as ending our presence, it should not act at all. The belief that a “lightning victory” would be involved in rebuilding a nation is foolhardy: I would respectfully remind all political commentators that U.S. forces are still in Germany, and will continue to be for the entire foreseeable future (in fact, we have an excellent military hospital in Germany, and I doubt we will abandon it!).
The Iraq situation has become a spin campaign, and spinning deaths is a cruel thing to do.
Uzzell S. Branson IV, La Jolla
