Assembly candidate also wishes to sign ‘no more jets’ pledge

To the Editor:

I read the article in the February 11th issue of The Argonaut entitled “Assembly candidates at Venice forum asked to sign ‘no more jets’ at Santa Monica Airport pledge.”

Since the event was a Democratic Party event, and I am the Green Party candidate, I was not in attendance but I also wish to sign the “no more jets” pledge.

As a Venice Beach artist and activist on the Venice Boardwalk, often in the flight path, I can attest that the presence is disruptive. I am appalled at the volume of jets that fly over daily. While I do understand that those who like to fly have a right to fly, I see that the bulk of the problem is related to the jets.

As a concerned resident and participant within the flight path, I, and others, have a right to be concerned and seek ways to minimize the impact to our environment and our own health.

Since my focus is about balance rooted in holistic sustainability, I am certain we must legislate further incremental reductions in airplane noise and air pollution. The jets, for those that have the luxury, should be operated out of Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

Californians have a right to know what is being emitted into the environment from all emission sources and all chemical formulations. For instance, I believe our state should end the Air Pollution Credit (“Offset”) System of the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

Also, California should control greenhouse gas emissions independent of federal policy and should continue toxins release and environmental pollution inventories so we are informed of what groups are contributing to the problem and at what level.

Lisa Green, State Assembly 2010 Candidate,, 53rd District , Green Party of California

Questions effort to install enclosure for snowy plover

To the Editor:

I hope the endangered western snowy plovers are happy in their new home at Dockweiler State Beach. After all, it only took a three-year study and several agencies, cities, Audubon Society and a consultant to implement a management plan that will serve as a “model for protecting sensitive resources,” AKA 500 feet of orange plastic mesh fencing.

Are you serious! Must be our tax dollars at work. Any able-bodied person could have put up the fence in a few hours.

Why didn’t just ONE person from the Audubon swim north across the main channel and take a look at how the least terns have lived on the peninsula for years? Believe it or not, the Audubon are involved in both projects.

Obviously we don’t need all those government folks, so they should be first in line for layoffs or better yet, put them to work fixing the ever increasing number of potholes in the streets.

Oh, I forgot. Nobody has ever fixed a pothole before so it would take years of study by lots of organizations before anything could be done.

Peter Harrity, Venice

Asks county to consider sewer project route with least impact

To the Editor:

I am writing in regards to The Argonaut February 4th article “Supervisors request writ against Venice main sewer project slated for construction through Marina del Rey:”

My first contact with this project was a public hearing on October 15th, 2002. The four alternative project routes presented were:

ï Down the beach parallel to the current force main. It was deemed to be subject to beach erosion over the next 50 years and would also run under the least tern sanctuary;

ï Down Pacific Avenue, a two-lane street with a single parking lane, causing major disruption to the residents of the Peninsula (including blocking emergency access and egress) and reduced access to the coast for all; and

ï Two other routes going east and around the entire Marina area.

All of the routes were designed to avoid Los Angeles County-only property, yet the county developments are part of the problem. If the City of Los Angeles were to shut off the valve that allows county-only development sewerage to flow through the force main, the county would have to develop a project similar to the one currently proposed and the load on the current system would be significantly reduced.

On November 27th, 2002, I sent a letter to a Los Angeles city commissioner suggesting a fifth alternative — the route along the two western lanes of Via Marina that is now being discussed. My reasons were as follows:

ï The disruption of traffic on the peninsula would be greatly reduced.

ï Residences on the west side of Via Dolce (I meant Via Marina) do not front on the street. Access to the properties is from other streets, in contrast to the numerous residences on Hurricane Street and Pacific Avenue whose front doors and driveways are on the street.

ï The divided roadway of Via Marina would allow the project to be accelerated while still allowing two-way travel along the east side of the road while each of the four major sections of road were under construction. This area also affords alternative streets for residents to leave the area.

ï The total construction time might be significantly shortened because beach traffic mitigation would not be required.

ï No alternate parking facilities would be required because currently no street parking is allowed in the area proposed.

All of the residents of the Peninsula and most of the visitors to the beach are also residents of the county. I would hope that the supervisors will reconsider their actions and support a project that tries to have the least impact on all residents of this beautiful area.

John S. Perkins, Marina del Rey