Kevin Cody

Letters 7/24/14

Decrease Font Size Increase Font Size Text Size Print This Page

What’s good for the fisher is good for the bicyclist

Dear ER:
For those tasked with the decision making of whether or not to ban fishing from the Manhattan Beach pier, consider the following. The last two deaths attributed to a shark bite in Southern California were to a surfer and a bodyboarder. Neither of those sharks were hooked to a fisherman’s line. A few years back a pedestrian was killed on The Strand when she and a bicyclist collided. Where was past public outcry to ban surfing, bodyboarding, cycling and walking?

Ask any dentist or emergency room physician physician and you will learn that surfboards and their users cause far more injuries to swimmers than do fisherman and sharks. I agree with implementing laws to minimize the chance of a shark being hooked by a fisherman, but c’mon, ban fishing?

I do not fish. However I respect the rights of people to enjoy the great outdoors through any legal activity.
The recent shark attack was an unfortunate incident.However, public reaction is based more on the sensationalism of the incident than public safety. Bad things can and will happen to people who choose to swim hundreds of yards from shore in the open ocean.

Jorge A. Badel
Manhattan Beach

Not making it

Dear ER:
I’ve waited for a while to adjust to and accept the new Easy Reader format. I’ve been a faithful reader of Easy Reader since its earliest days. It’s difficult to remind myself to no longer bother waiting for a return to the insightful, sometimes quirky local area weekly.

I suppose that this week’s “Making It” cartoon (ER July 24, 2012) could have been printed even smaller than it was, and that would have made possible even more space for advertising. I suppose that I could have found a magnifying glass to make it legible.

The new format is awkward to read, the font is too small, the print is too light; the Easy Reader is no longer worth my time.

Tony Cole
Redondo Beach

Thanks for not skating the issue

Dear ER:
On July 15 the Manhattan Beach City Council voted unanimously to remove Polliwog Park from consideration for the location of a skatepark. As 2014 Chair of the Friends of Polliwog Park (FOPP), on behalf of our organization, I want to shout out a special thanks to Council Member Mark Burton, who as an east-side resident and a fellow member of FOPP, fully understands the value of keeping Polliwog an open green space park for leisure activities and the value of unbiased consultants. I’d also like to thank Council Member Tony D’Errico, who was unwavering on the importance of listening to the community’s voice and ensuring unbiased consultants; and Mayor Pro Tem Wayne Powell who made the motion to remove Polliwog from future skatepark consideration; and Council Member David Lesser and Mayor Amy Howorth for their concern for fairness and a process that demands integrity, transparency and efficacy.

Finally, to two indefatigable people Laura Santos and Stephanie Robins, who were working to save Polliwog long before most of us knew it needed saving. They never gave up or gave in. Thank you for knocking on my door.

Julie Profet
Manhattan Beach

Buy and switch

Dear Editor:
The substantially revised draft Health Impact Assessment is little more than an attempted whitewash of the controversial proposal to drill 30 oil and gas wells and four wastewater injection wells on a tiny plot in the middle of a densely packed neighborhood of Hermosa Beach. Intrinsik, a company that has a track record of finding no problems with the vast majority of the projects it reviews, purchased McDaniel Lambert, the company originally hired by the City to do the Health Impact Assessment, and did a 180 on McDaniel Lambert’s initial findings. Intrinsik’s conclusions are less than persuasive.

For example, Intrinsik says there would be no substantial effect from light emissions during night-time operations, yet it recommends that black-out curtains and blinds be purchased for residents. Similarly, Intrinsik finds no substantial effect from noise emissions, but simultaneously recommends that written notification be provided to residents when there is the potential for excess noise. With respect to air quality, while Intrinsik says “no substantial effect,” it notes that “periodic odor releases [are] identified in the EIR as significant and unavoidable” and admits that “odor can have various health consequences, and could result in periodic discomfort and annoyance.” Most significantly, regarding “upset conditions,” including oil spills and blowouts (i.e., fires and explosions), Intrinsik writes that “there is a low probability of occurrence, but in the event such conditions were to occur, they could have significant negative health implications.” Significant, negative health implicatons?Like death, maybe? Perhaps the loss of dozens of homes and businesses? And their recommendation for dealing with these “significant negative health implications”? Intrinsik cavalierly suggests that “the City incorporate the possibility of an oil spill or well blowout into its current emergency preparedness plan.” In other words, if there’s a spill, fire, or explosion, we should call the fire department. This report is utter nonsense. The City should reject it outright.

R. Douglas Collins
Hermosa Beach

Waterfront washout

Dear Editor:
On July 9, we attended the public meeting about the proposed Redondo Beach Waterfront Project. We were disappointed to find that the meeting, while held in the Performing Arts Center, was actually in the lobby, not the auditorium. There were no seats, so the attendees, many of whom were seniors, had to stand for the whole meeting. The sight lines were bad, so many people could not see the speaker and his projected slides and architectural renderings.

No time was allowed for questions and answers. Attendees were invited to fill out “comment cards,” or to type their comments into one of two available laptops, or to verbally give their comments to a designated “reporter” stationed in a corner. The format seemed designed to keep attendees from hearing others’ comments. Two questions were shouted from the floor, which the presenter evidently could not ignore. One asked whether the proposed two boat launch ramps would be for trailerable boats or only small craft such as kayaks. The other asked about whether buildings in the rendering were one or two stories. To both questions the presenter answered, “I don’t know.”

Apparently Center Cal wanted our opinions about their project in order to better tailor their pitch, to say what people want to hear. What a waste of our time.

Norm and Carol Simoes

Dear ER:
As a life long resident of the South Bay, I enjoy Easy Reader both in print and online. But I must say I was worried my vision may be failing me. Although the Easy Reader switched to the larger, more common newspaper format recently, my ability to read the print seems to have worsened. More specifically, I can no longer read Making It, at the beach comic, without the aid of a magnifying glass. At first I thought it was my vision, but I now realize it’s the incredibly shrinking size of Making It.
What gives?

I’m not a fan of the new newspaper format but the business of print being what it is, if it helps the Easy Reader, so be it.

Jerry Pancake
Manhattan Beach


comments so far. Comments posted to may be reprinted in the Easy Reader print edition, which is published each Thursday.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login