‘Together we certainly are a loud voice for the betterment of Marina del Rey’
To the Editor:
Regarding the California Coastal Commission meeting in Marina del Rey on January 9th, where the commissioners unanimously voted to support the people and community of Marina del Rey, I have a few comments.
There were 87-plus of us who spoke regarding the development regulations, traffic, boating, water quality and public recreation as well as wildlife preservation in Marina del Rey — and they heard us.
What this means is that we, as a community, are finally getting acknowledged, and together we certainly are a loud voice for the betterment of Marina del Rey.
The coastal commissioner’s recommendations asked for a Master Plan for the future of Marina del Rey to be presented to the public by the Department of Beaches and Harbors. They also acted to restrain our local government, the Los Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors, from their massive plans to demolish and rebuild Marina del Rey.
Unanimously the commissioners voted that residential development is a “low priority” and public access to the water and recreation are and should remain the highest priority within Marina del Rey.
D. G. Franklin, resident and boat owner, Marina del Rey
Another reader’s suggestion for gridlock at Admiralty and Mindanao Ways
To the Editor:
Regarding “Suggestion for gridlock at Admiralty and Mindanao” in the December 20th issue of The Argonaut, the letter writer wrote: “There are, at present, four to five light sequences and one of them I feel is unnecessary and would save the drivers a lot of time if eliminated. That one is for eastbound traffic on Mindanao.”
While I sympathize with those who are patiently (or impatiently) waiting to make their left turns, I disagree with the letter writer’s recommendation.
As a frequent eastbound commuter on Mindanao, I can (and often do) make a right turn on Admiralty, then a left into the shopping center parking lot, then a right turn onto Mindanao (having bypassed the intersection) to continue my travel east — all before the light changes.
Perhaps the letter writer could alter his route to enter the freeway from Lincoln Boulevard (usually much quicker), thus avoiding the light altogether.
Blaine Lentz, Marina del Rey
Favors off-leash dog parks funded by local taxpayers
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to the woman who felt it was not the taxpayers responsibility to provide an off-leash dog park.
Does she also believe that other taxpayer-funded activities such as tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, baseball and soccer fields, hiking trails, boat docks, campgrounds, etc. should not be built? Though I rarely participate in those activities, I am willing to have my taxes purchase land, equipment and upkeep for others’ enjoyment.
I suggest my desire to have a place that is “convenient and for my animal’s pleasure and exercise” is no less valid. I resent that there are not nearly enough dog parks for the number of people who have dogs and would enjoy this facility.
She stated that if an owner cannot provide a yard for their dog to romp and play in, then they should just walk their dog. Walking a dog on a leash and letting the dog run and socialize in an off-leash park is not the same. It’s like telling a person who can’t provide a tennis court for themselves in their own yard to just play on the sidewalk.
Carol Katona, Venice
‘Dog parks are probably the most cost-effective recreational expenditure there is’
To the Editor:
So, the letter-writer in the January 17th issue of The Argonaut doesn’t feel like her taxes should help pay for public dog parks? How does she feel about other recreational venues such as libraries, the bike path, beaches, museums and public parks with specialized areas for tennis, baseball, basketball and swimming pools? Does she participate in all these activities? I use hardly any of those facilities, yet I have no choice when my taxes go to pay for them. That is part of the price we pay for living in a civilized community.
Dog parks are probably the most cost-effective recreational expenditure there is, considering the number of humans who use them. They require little capital expenditure to set up, and are very low maintenance, compared with say a museum or library, and typically get many more human visitors in a day than the typical tennis court.
As someone who volunteers in the dog rescue community, I can tell you that one reason it is difficult to place homeless dogs, especially the larger breeds, is that there are so few places to take them. Not everyone can afford a home with a large yard, and the benefits of socializing dogs with other dogs can’t be overstated.
I can’t think of a better recreational use for my taxes than building dog parks wherever practical.
Andy Pearlman, board member, Forte Animal Rescue, Marina del Rey
‘Dogs can’t get the exercise they need walking on a leash’
To the Editor:
In response to the letter “Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for more dog parks,” not only do dog owners pay an inordinate amount of money to rescue unwanted dogs that would otherwise be euthanized, these same people are also subject to the costs of care and treatment for their animals.
Even though statistically more people have dogs than children, none of these expenses can be deducted from one’s income taxes.
To clarify, I said, in my letter to the editor January 10th, that we are one of the largest groups of taxpaying constituents, not that taxpayer dollars should be used for more parks, which we desperately need.
There are over 13 [off-leash] dog parks in Los Angeles and all of them have been funded or partially funded from city funds, many of those were Quimby funds — a portion of developer’s money that is put back into communities to enhance the quality of life for everyone.
If this writer were truly an animal lover, she would know that dogs cannot get the kind of exercise they need walking on a leash. They can’t chase a Frisbee on a leash, or do they not have the right to chase a Frisbee or a ball?
As this writer wrongfully assumes, in this urban society, many people do not have yards. And as this writer also wrongfully assumes, I am not a he.
Daryl Barnett, Venice