San Carlos incident shows folly of gun-lock plan
When viewing the evening news, on July 17, 2019, I saw a report where a home-intruding criminal was shot and died after stabbing the homeowner — on Lakeshore Drive in the community of San Carlos, city of San Diego.
In my opinion, we should all be thankful that on Dec. 15, 1791, our Founding Fathers provided the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. In this case, the most important would be the Second Amendment for all citizens to keep and bear arms. So to the young man that had the wherewithal and the courage to use that force necessary to protect family and property, I say bravo!
Another report informed viewers that our San Diego City Council tentatively passed a resolution put forth by our current City Attorney Mara Elliott that all firearms be locked in a Department of Justice-approved container or be equipped with a gun lock. When our families are in danger from a criminal element, in this most recent case, a knife-wielding home invader, will Elliott’s new city ordinance protect the citizens of this community? I think not, it will delay and hinder a defender’s response time.
It would appear that Elliott and the supporting council members of this new ordinance are tragically unaware that state legislators have already addressed this issue, in that upon transferring a new or used firearm through a licensed California firearms dealer, as required by law, that the transferee must successfully pass a firearms knowledge examination, and before the firearms dealer can deliver subject firearm, the transferee must provide the make and model of an authorized Department of Justice container and/or purchase a gun lock before taking possession of said firearm.
Question: Is this new ordinance merely political posturing or for the purpose of someone’s political resume?
How many injuries or fatalities are required to satisfy the political agenda of gun control advocates?
— Joe Ney, Del Cerro
Finish the job, pick up poo bags
Most folks who walk their dogs in our Mission Trails Regional Park are picking up after their dogs. Sadly, many folks are leaving these plastic bags lying along the sides of the trails. Are they expecting someone else to carry their bags out of the park or that these plastic bags and the contents will decompose? These bags will be viewable for the next 10 to 1,000 years.
— Carolyn Barkow, San Carlos
No more market-rate housing on public land
Re: “Trolley station housing approved” [Volume 25, Issue 7 or bit.ly/2MgbIpX]
Just got through reading your article about a plan to build housing at the Grantville Trolley Station and would like to comment. I live in Mission Valley and often use public transportation.
While it is good to hear that there will be 156 affordable units included in the proposal, it is inconceivable that another 254 units of the development will be market-rate. Market-rate is developer code for unaffordable. San Diego already has a surplus of market-rate, unaffordable housing and adding to this will not alleviate the unaffordability of housing in the area. That these unaffordable, market-rate units will be “student-oriented” is beyond belief. What student will be able to afford market-rate housing?
Often we hear real estate developers talk that their housing proposals will be “transit oriented” because they are near a trolley or bus route but, more often than not, they price their units beyond the financial wherewithal of the majority of public transportation users. Does anyone really believe that someone that pays $700,000 or more for housing will actually use public transportation on any kind of regular basis?
City officials are constantly giving waivers, exemptions, credits, zoning changes, subsidies, etc., to real estate development interests in the hope that this will bring down the cost of housing but these giveaways have not solved the problem of housing unaffordability. The money saved by developers due to these giveaways is hardly ever reflected in the lowering of housing prices but goes right into a developer’s pocket.
It doesn’t make any sense to allow a developer to build housing on public property where the majority of the units will be at market-rate. When they include some affordable units in their development plans, does this mean that the other units will be unaffordable? What business model includes providing an unaffordable product to come to market? One can only assume that real estate interests really don’t care whether someone has to put out 40-50% of their monthly income just to afford somewhere to live. They seem to disregard if a renter or homeowner has to work two or three jobs to afford their “market-rate” housing.
Building housing near public transportation options seems like a good idea, but if these public transportation options are not available when people need them, it is all moot. Currently the Green Line Trolley that serves Mission Valley, Grantville, and beyond, doesn’t run eastward from Downtown past about 11:30 p.m. Often the Green Line Trolley that runs eastward from Downtown only goes as far as the SDCCU Stadium Station. Bus service is also very limited, or non-existent, at late hours. If you’re a student that has purchased one of the proposed “market-rate” homes in Grantville and work Downtown at say one of the Gaslamp businesses that closes late, your only option for getting back home appears to be driving your own vehicle and paying the expensive parking rates charged Downtown, taking a cab, another expensive option, or using ride-sharing because the trolley and buses don’t run late and some that do leave you a good mile or more to walk to Grantville.
The latest giveaway the city has bestowed upon developers: easing of parking requirements for new housing developments, which has not made housing any more affordable. Developers say residents will use public transportation or ride-sharing entities. The first is a fantasy, and in regards to ride-sharing entities, if there’s less parking where will the vehicles that provide ride-sharing park when not in use?
— Stuart Rachmuth, Mission Valley.
