MAILBAG - Feb. 15, 2001

Your editorial (“Hearthside can end this 30-year battle now,” Feb. 1)

was very noble.

You told it the way it actually is.

Without a doubt everyone you talk to is very happy that part of the

mesa is saved. What could be more proof?

Truly a noble editorial.ALFRED L. VARI

Huntington Beach

Your editorial was obviously slanted and biased. Your opening

sentence, “When will enough be enough for Hearthside Homes and Signal

Landmark”, should have read, “When will your editorial spin be objective

and factual?”

It is your kind of reporting and bureaucratic bullying that results in

the “court of last resort”. The courts of justice are based on legal

findings. What you advocate is the taking of private property.

I speak from more than two decades of direct involvement in finding

the best use of this precious land in order to make it a win-win for

everyone. The property owners, Hearthside Homes and Signal Landmark, can

and will make possible the only opportunity for restoration of the

wetlands. You seem to have forgotten that was our mission.

The plan before that “stacked” Coastal Commission was the result of

more than two decades of public hearings before the county.

We can and must live compatibly with nature. As a former Orange County

Supervisor of 16 years -- four years as a member and mayor of the City

Council -- I worked for wetlands restoration in a public-private

partnership to achieve that goal.

HARRIETT WIEDER

Huntington Beach

The editorial (“Hearthside can end this 30-year battle now,” Feb. 1)

was disgusting!

What kind of tabloid journalism are you practicing over there? I don’t

give a tinker’s damn about who wins, builds or who gets to carry the gold

medal after this ridiculous fighting has ceased.

I do care about a newspaper that is so biased toward one side that we

cannot count on you for information, without wondering if it has been

tainted by your prejudices. I am thoroughly disgusted with the whole

thing. If I didn’t like the L.A. Times, I would never read the

Independent again.

Maybe if enough of us petition the Times, we can have the Independent

removed from our delivered papers. You are not journalists at all.

MARTHA QUIMBLY

Huntington Beach

Thanks for your article regarding the Bolsa Chica. It reflects my

sentiment, among others, very well.

The Mesa is a precious place for both wildlife and humans. It’s a

place where both can “Touch Down” in a symbiotic relationship, close to

the open ocean, yet still far enough away from residential chaos to form

a peaceful transition back to the city. Keep up the good words!

LELAND COLE

Huntington Beach

Your Feb. 1 editorial on the Bolsa Chica was absolutely disgusting.

You put it upon the property owner to end this 30-year fight because

it would stop the other side from sniveling and complaining.

Are you insane? What kind of an attitude is that? Would you suggest we

raise our children like that, giving in every time they work themselves

up into a decent tantrum?

In all the years of one-sided reporting churned out by the Independent

on this issue, this latest editorial is by far the worst example of your

blatant disregard for the truth. Aren’t you supposed to be fair? Aren’t

you supposed to at least appear to know what you’re writing about? Your

editorial accomplished neither goal. I am ashamed to call you my hometown

newspaper.

KELLIE MARIE LAWRENCE

Huntington Beach

I had to laugh when reading your piece on the Bolsa Chica saga. Did

you let your third-grader fill in for you for the day?

Readers do not expect your editorials to be anything other than your

opinions, however, we do have a right to expect those opinions to be

based on a true understanding of the facts. In your attempt to mold

public opinion, you chose to skew the facts to fit your arguments, which

were vapid at best.

I especially found it interesting that you chose to completely skip

over the 1989 coalition agreement forged by the landowner, several

government agencies and the Amigos de Bolsa Chica. Why not urge everyone

involved to return to that contract and keep those promises?

I am very disappointed with the lack of editorial ethics displayed by

the Independent. It makes me wonder if this lack of fair and unbiased

presentation of the stories has trickled down to your reporters as well.

LLOYD SKAGGS

Huntington Beach

Your editorial (“Does Huntington Beach really need a dog park,” Jan.

25) does not mention that four of the people who spoke at the city’s

Community Service Commission meeting were from one family. Two of whom

were children whose parents had the gall to enable them to use the dog

park as an excuse for poor grades. Most of the complaints voiced by the

homeowners were contradicted by facts from city officials, leaving only

one (of four) potential credible issues remaining -- the noise of the

dogs barking.

More importantly, however, this letter is addressed to the last column

in the article. In this day and age, more people look to the

companionship of pets, despite the fact that most of us have very small

backyards. The dog park allows for dog owners in restricted environments

to meet others with similar interests, while their dogs enjoy exercise

and learn socialization skills. In the long run this enables them to be

better neighbors in their own homes.

The article makes some rampant statements such as, “the Costa Mesa

park has had trouble with the mess created by it.” How about some facts

to support this claim?

The next sentence indicates that other towns held fast against

creating dog parks for these reasons. Again, can we have some specific

facts? It is my understanding that dog parks are included in most new

planned development communities and that the Huntington Beach Dog Park

has been their role model.

I would agree that perhaps the city could have chosen a more secluded

location to build the dog park originally. Central Park is a massive park

that appears to have many undeveloped areas that would be well-suited for

a dog park. Moving the park would no longer require restricted hours that

directly hinder those who need to schedule their time around work hours.

Another section of the park may even provide a more viable location for

dog lovers because lights could be installed to extend hours in the

winter without bother to residents.

Since the park is supported by a nonprofit organization, and is

totally self-funded, I would expect that the city would contribute funds

toward moving the dog park if necessary. Unfortunately, it appears that

these homeowners will not rest until they have eliminated the park

altogether, despite the credibility, or lack thereof, of their

complaints.

I am disappointed with the Independent for printing such an editorial

without any basis for support.

MONA J. FINE

Huntington Beach

Having talked to a lot of people regarding this matter, not all who

use the dog park, they can’t understand how you can hear any noise from

the park with all the auto and traffic noise on Edwards Street.

The smell you said emanated from the dog park area could possibly be

coming from the stables nearby, yet you never once mentioned the horses.

The dog owners using the park not only have a place to let their dogs

run, they have made personal relationships with other dog owners. They

also volunteer to help keep the dog park clean and pay for its

maintenance.

Let’s work things out. Those of us who use the park are also taxpayers

in Huntington Beach, and we want to get along with you and our neighbors.

Our home is across the street from a school playground. We knew there

would be some noise when we moved in 25 years ago, and expected it just

as you have the noise from the park and playground across from Lakepoint.

The city and youth soccer association decided to use the playground

across from us for kid’s soccer every night of the week and on weekends.

They installed 40-foot lights. All the noise, lights and screaming

parents are a bit uncomfortable, but we live with it. That’s part of

living in a community with others who respect and accept the lives and

activities of its neighbors.

The playground across the street from our home is not the end of the

world, no more than the dog park across the street from residents of

Lakepoint Lane.

DON ESTRIN

Huntington Beach

Thank you for your recent editorial that supports moving or closing

the dog park at Central Park.

You accurately portrayed some of the concerns of the homeowners in the

area who are being affected by the constant noise and nuisance of barking

dogs.

The only thing that was not accurate was the idea that the nearby

residents would wish the dog park moved to someone else’s neighborhood.

We would never wish this negative intrusion on anyone’s quality of life.

In response to some of the letters of the dog park supporters, the

longtime residents of the area and several planning commissioners are on

public record six years ago opposing the inception of the dog park. We

have the right to speak out about how our lives are being affected by

this constant turmoil over the dog park issues.

DENISE SMITH

Huntington Beach