‘DEAR RON’ LETTERS

I agree with the view you expressed in the two columns I’ve read in

which you say that when an agency such as the California Coastal

Commission prohibits the owners of property from using it commercially in

a reasonable and useful way, they should be compensated (“It’s a matter

of opinion, not integrity,” Feb. 22 and “Do the ends really justify the

means here?,” Jan. 25).

I didn’t read the editorial you mentioned, nor the letters pro and

con. So I’m sorry that I can’t comment on their reasoning.

I have some, though limited, claim to environmentalism. In the dim and

distant past, I was a biology professor at a university where I taught

among other things a course in environmental toxicology, and wrote a

widely used textbook, “Environment of Life,” long out of print. I’m a

passionate conservationist who views with increasing dismay and sadness

the erosion of resources that will be seen as lost treasures in years to

come. I wish we would do much more about it.

But I long ago distanced myself from “environmentalists.” Although in

most cases, I agreed with and still agree with their aims, these

well-meaning folks sometimes use their influence to flout common sense or

simply use their clout under the cover of shallow ethics. Compensation is

a case in point.

I’m appalled and embarrassed that anyone with similar views to mine

would ask for property to be set aside for the common good without

offering to share the cost, but instead demand that only the property

owner, sometimes one person, make the sacrifice.

In my view, what benefits all should be paid for by all. If we’re not

willing to pony up, let’s quit bellyaching and admit that we don’t want

it that much.

KENNETH E. MAXWELL

Huntington Beach