MAILBAG - Oct. 19, 2006

‘No on T’ people missed the facts

I found the tactics used by the “No on Measure T” advocates in the recent debate on a senior center location deeply troubling.

The first false argument is that the proposed senior center is too big. In her argument in the debate, City Councilwoman Debbie Cook used about 10 synonyms for “big.” My personal favorite was “behemoth.”

Fact: The existing senior center, housed in a 1940s Army building, is only a third of the size required to serve our senior population. Our neighboring cities of Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa and Westminster have three times as much space per capita. Therefore, our new senior center size should be least 43,500 square feet. The day the new senior center is opened it will start to fall behind size wise. Today, according to the U.S. Census, Huntington Beach has more than 33,000 residents older than age 60. By 2020, the figure will rise to 54,000. No, the proposed senior center is not oversized; it will be barely adequate. And no, it’s not a “palace in the park”; it will be a modest functional center just like those in our neighboring cities.

Another false argument is that it would be cheaper to build on the existing site on 17th Street. To promote this argument, they propose an undersized senior center conveniently ignoring the fact that Huntington Beach provides only one-third of senior center space per capita than all our neighboring cities. Also, they ignore that an adequate center on the old site would have to be multi-story with underground parking, costing $10 million more than the Central Park site.

Sadly, their arguments were designed not to inform, but to deceive the voters. I suppose that their justification for this duplicity in their world of environmental extremism is that the ends justify the means and the truth be damned. In any case sadly, I have lost respect for the panelists on the no side.

DAVE SULLIVAN

Huntington Beach

Baby Boomers should vote

I am a baby boomer in favor of Measure T, the new senior center.

Hey, Baby Boomers — we are the generation of movers and shakers who are working the hardest at aging gracefully. Let’s do our part in getting the new senior (aging gracefully) center built without new taxes, so we can have a modern beautiful facility when it’s our time to make use of it.

Vote yes on Measure T. Get the facts at www.soshb.com.

ADRIA S. THOMKE

Huntington Beach

Central Park is for the people

I watched the Measure T debate on Channel 3 with great interest. I hope everyone who missed it catches it on replay or watches it via the city’s website.

Ralph Bauer repeated something he’s mentioned in letters to the local papers and in public comments at City Council meetings. He said that Central Park already devotes acres to horses, dogs and Frisbee golf, and that what he cares about is people. Does he think the horses aren’t used by people? That the dogs aren’t accompanied by people? That the Frisbees throw themselves? These activities are for all people, young and old alike. They are in an open-air environment for all to enjoy.

Bauer also states that Measure T is about setting aside property for a center, and that it’s not about finances. But what is the use of having land if you don’t have the money to operate the center? Where is the city supposed to get the money to staff and operate such a large facility if the current smaller facility is understaffed? It is this kind of poor planning and not thinking ahead that gets this city into trouble time and again.

Vote no on Measure T.

JULIE BIXBY

Huntington Beach

Learn about senior center and then vote

We have a very important issue that has been placed on the ballot in our Nov. 7 ballot. A public debate took place on Oct. 9 at the City Council chambers regarding pros and cons to setting aside five acres of open space at Central Park for a new, larger, up-to-date senior center. If you have not seen the debate and would like to hear all the facts of both sides, please go online to the city website under government-live broadcast or catch the repeat showing of the debate on Channel 3. Please study the very important facts and please go vote on Nov. 7.

CAROL SETTIMO

Huntington Beach

A nickname just can’t be that important

Sounds like our visitors’ bureau is out of control. For several years, they fought with Santa Cruz over the name Surf City. A few months ago, the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau got the rights for the trademark “Surf City, USA” and apparently felt the fight was settled.

I was watching the evening news on one of the major TV channels in this area, and one of their reports was that a shop (or two) in Santa Cruz is suing the visitors’ bureau because the visitors’ bureau contacted them and told them they could not use Surf City on their T-shirts. It is my understanding; however, that the shirts say, “Surf City Santa Cruz, USA” — a little different than our “trademark.”

I’m wondering if our visitors’ bureau is going to stop Surf City, N.C., and Surf City, N.J., from selling merchandise they may choose to sell with their name on it.

Are our tax dollars going to be spent on this fight (apparent lawsuit) with Santa Cruz?

Can’t we just have a Surf City North and a Surf City South?

I really can’t understand how fighting over the nickname of another city will bring any tourists to Huntington Beach.

SHIRLEY DAVIS

Huntington Beach

PCH needs more safety measures

I think Pacific Coast Highway is really unsafe and should change. There can be safeguards or something.

Too many innocent lives have been taken.

ELYSSA HOUCHEN

Huntington Beach