Mailbag - Feb. 1, 2001

The Jan. 18 edition had an article regarding the recall of Huntington

Beach Councilman Dave Garofalo (“Garofalo’s recall petition approved”).

The article stated that the format of the petition had been approved

by the city clerk Jan. 12 and that the Committee for Honest and

Responsible Government had commenced gathering signatures with a target

date of June 21 to gather 16,000 signatures.

I am glad the Independent printed this brief article, but I am

disappointed that it was buried on Page 12. This issue is far more

important than a dog park. This man is a blight on Huntington Beach and

must be recalled.

Thank you for the good work you are doing in keeping the public

informed about Garofalo. But the charges for which he is being

investigated and the agencies that are doing the investigating should be

repeatedly printed in the Independent so that all your readers, who also

want honest and responsible government, will be cognizant of his

[alleged] indiscretions.

As a member of the Committee for Honest and Responsible Government, I

am heartened by the response from the citizens who want to sign the

recall petition.

STEVE GULLAGE

Huntington Beach

Certification of recall petition is heartening

I was heartened to see that the recall petition against Huntington

Beach Councilman Dave Garofalo was certified. He has voted repeatedly on

projects where he had conflicts of interest.

Garofalo has hidden his business interests to disguise the conflicts.

He sought special treatment on the purchase of a house and then voted

repeatedly for the developer’s projects.

I think he will continue to peddle his influence if he is allowed to

remain on the City Council. Garofalo’s malfeasance is an embarrassment to

our city. I’ll be glad to sign a recall petition.

RICHARD MCGRATH

Huntington Beach

Committee should focus on well-being of children

It made me very sad to read Karen Martin’s letter and your interview

with her that was published Jan. 18 (“Meeting did not let all voices be

heard”).

It was very sad to see her as a Community Advisory Commission member

calling the people who she represents a “mob.” These people -- the “mob”

-- who did not behave well, according to Martin, are good citizens of

Huntington Beach taking the time to come to a meeting and express their

opinion as they were asked by the committee members.

These people also happened to be among the 92% of the 260 households

(396 people) who responded to the door-to-door poll conducted by the

neighborhood community. Now, one should ask why people who are among the

vast majority group should be angry according to your paper? Could it be

that they are frustrated with the situation?

I will give you one well-documented example as one of the reasons.

Martin’s letter reads, “As a courtesy, we allowed you to present your

views despite that no-gym option was outside the scope of the meeting.”

On the contrary, the questionnaire sent by the committee, along with the

invitation for the Jan. 10 meeting, starts with the first question: “1 --

Opposed to the gym auditorium in any form.”

It looks like Martin did not manage the meeting to her satisfaction

and was not able to tell us about our “rude and disrespectful manner” in

the meeting directly.

Instead, she had to write a letter to your paper. As a constructive

suggestion, I would propose that maybe she should not represent us as a

committee member either.

Hopefully, this would help reduce the controversies on the side

issues, and we would be able to concentrate on the main issue, which is

that the school board is proposing to spend millions of dollars to build

a giant-size gymnasium with two adult-sized basketball courts on the

Spring View Middle School grounds.

They are [considering] to have it open for rent until 10 p.m. seven

days a week in the middle of the residential tract.

Interestingly, the very same giant gymnasium that supposedly would be

built for the good of the kids at their school would have to be emptied

of the very same kids after school hours because of the adults who would

be coming to rent and play.

This was the answer from the school officials when, at the same Jan.

10 meeting, I raised the question of how our kids are going to be

safeguarded at the gym in the presence of strangers.

After all these meetings, to this date, we do not have a solid and

sound counterproposal from the school board. I just have a simple

question for the school board: If it has money to spend, why can’t it do

it for the kids only with all things considered? Isn’t this the board’s

main job?

The giant gym would make our kids pay with their future, their other

important priorities and their safety, and it would make the neighborhood

pay with possibly serious consequences, such as an increase in crimes in

addition to the general inconvenience created by the rental.

I also think that we all should focus on the issues affecting the true

education and well-being of our children and our community, and do not

let this become an issue between community members.

KAMRAN RAMEZANI

Huntington Beach