Letters to the Editor

Every day as I exit and enter my neighborhood, I see a patch of painted cement where there was once a mature tree. Just after the repaving of Long Beach Boulevard, in April of 2007, the City posted a notice on the tree announcing its proposed removal. I objected.
Shortly thereafter, I met with city officials and was told three trees would be planted directly across the street to mitigate for the removal of the tree. The City wasted little time removing the mature tree, yet over one and a half years later they have yet to plant a single tree, let alone three.
On Tuesday I’ll cast my vote at Scherer Park. Interestingly enough a park that was sacrificed to make room for a multi-million dollar police station- which daily sits empty after 5 p.m. Measure I promises more police stations without funding more police. Councilmember Gabelich, in her last [advertisement], stated that she believes Measure I will enhance the quality of life in Long Beach. I wonder what she expects. Certainly police won’t fill an empty building, but maybe three trees will finally sprout after one and a half years.
My vision for Long Beach is not one of less parkland to house empty buildings or cement in place of fallen trees. It is one of responsible leaders who consider the long-term effects of their actions and not push for bandage solutions. Leaders who find a fair way to truly improve the quality of life within a city and who don’t invest public funds in failing financial institutions, while already having a 17-million-dollar deficit.
Mayor Foster says Measure I isn’t perfect, but it’s the best we can do. By rejecting Measure I, let him know our vision for Long Beach is perfect- we want responsible solutions.

Carmen Valdes
Long Beach



Weighing Watergate against Weather Underground

In your October 23rd issue, under the Opinion section, you published an item by Brett Hawkins. The author pits John McCain’s belated friendship with G. Gordon Liddy, “the star of the Watergate scandal,” against Barack Obama’s past relationship with Bill Ayers, formerly of the Weather Underground. His point appears to be that Liddy was just as violent as Ayers. Although I would agree that this should not be a central issue about the presidential candidates, nevertheless, it appeared to me that Mr. Hawkins was disingenuous.
Without substantiation, Hawkins claims that Liddy “…planned to firebomb, kidnap, and lure the competition and its supporters….” Is that so? The facts are that Liddy only planned and effectuated a non-violent break-in of Democratic headquarters. As the result, he was charged with conspiracy to do so, with burglary, and with violating federal wiretapping laws. He was also part of an unsuccessful commercial burglary, the purpose of which was to obtain Daniel Ellsberg’s medical records. Liddy might have made other inflammatory statements; but, in fact, he never carried out any violent deeds.
As for Ayers, he and his wife, Bernardine Dorn, held positions of authority in the Weather Underground, a group noted for violence- often by bombings. In 1969 Ayers participated in placing a bomb under a statue dedicated to police casualties resulting from a 19th century labor riot. The explosion shattered windows of buildings and hurled debris onto a nearby freeway. The statue was rebuilt in 1970 but was again blown up by unidentified persons. Ayers also participated in the following additional bombings: in 1970, a branch of the New York City Police Department; in 1971, the U.S. Capitol Building: and in 1972, the Pentagon.
Which would you classify as more violent and dangerous: 1) A person who broke into a commercial building at night to view documents, but did no other harm to the building or its occupants; or 2) a person who on successive occasions bombed your local police station, your city hall, and a statue near buildings and a busy freeway?

Jeremiah Flanigan
Long Beach


SIZING IT UP

My husband and I want to thank you for publishing the article “Signal Hill To Clamp Down on Parking of Oversized Vehicles” (October 23). As Signal Hill homeowners for over 30 years and owners of a pick-up truck with a camper on it, we were oblivious to the ordinance in the works.
As a result of reading that article, I attended the city council meeting on Tuesday night to address our concerns about this ordinance. It was at that meeting that we, along with another couple in attendance to address the same issue, found out that this ordinance has been in the works for two years and was first introduced at the October 14 meeting. My husband and I have demanding jobs and do not have the leisure of perusing every city council agenda. Therefore, we were unaware of the pending legislation.
After two people and I spoke, the council put it to a vote. Unfortunately, the ordinance passed 3-2, and, within 30 days, residents with RVs, trailers, boats, etc. are going to be restricted from parking in front of their own homes.
Keep up the good work, Signal Tribune. We rely on you to let us know what important things are happening in Signal Hill in case the council is working on additional “surprises.”

Ellen and Bill Janssen
Signal Hill

Letters to the Editor
2 comments on “Letters to the Editor
  1. Pingback: Letters to the Editor | Signal Tribune Newspaper | lowerautoinsurance

  2. Pingback: insuranceslowprices » Blog Archive » Letters to the Editor | Signal Tribune Newspaper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>