Letters to the Editor: 4-8-2021

Voting by the numbers

Dear ER

After watching the recent Hermosa City Council candidate debate, it looks like we have five fine candidates. But that means the winner may get only 25 to 30 percent of the vote, and almost certainly not a majority. A better way of voting would result in a fairer expression of community preference. That method is called “Instant Runoff Voting” or “Ranked Choice Voting.” Basically, this system allows a voter to express a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice, so no vote is “wasted.”  I strongly suggest checking out this site: FairVote.org , for a full explanation.  We could do it here. 

Allan Mason

Hermosa Beach

 

Tip of political iceberg

Dear ER

I lead efforts by the Redondo Beach Community Garden initiative, as the committee chairperson, and gave the presentation to the city council at the March 9 meeting (“Garden the tip of political iceberg,” ER Mar. 24, 2021). I would like to state for the record that our project is entirely apolitical and wholly community-driven. We are not associated nor beholden to any political groups, whatsoever, and characterizations that have painted our work and the work of our nonprofit sponsor, South Bay Parkland Conservancy, in this light are unfair and unfounded. Myself and the members of my committee come to this work with genuine intentions and an enthusiasm and passion to realize the vision for a community garden. We invite anyone with concerns to work with us and help make this project a success. Since last August, we’ve made an effort to reach out to each council member (and had heard from 3 of 5 members by the time of our presentation) and we will continue to seek out conversations and understanding. We have built a broad coalition of support across the entire community of Redondo Beach — thousands of signatures on our petition and active interest from community groups and residents wanting to volunteer. Our deeply-qualified committee members have done the due diligence of examining locations and drafting plans, accounting for hundreds of volunteer hours. As I stated in our presentation, we are ready and eager to work alongside the city and prepared to reduce demands on staff time by offering our expertise. We are not asking the city to run the garden. Instead, the city would be a land partner and the garden would be managed by our team, under the nonprofit, which is the model of the Hermosa Beach Community Garden and so many gardens throughout LA. Additionally, as stated, we are committed to fundraising as much of the costs for the project as we can, including applying for grants and seeking donations, which we hope to actively work on pending city approval and partnership. The community has always been at the center of the community garden. No matter one’s stance on larger Redondo issues such as development or the waterfront, this should be a cause that everyone can support and rally behind to make possible. Let’s not go down the path of divisiveness and let’s seek instead to find mutual understanding and common ground, so that the garden (and our shared community) can flourish.

Brianna Egan

Redondo Beach Community Garden Founder & Committee Chair

 

 

Harbor torpedo

Dear ER:

It is apparent from the March 25, 2021 Easy Reader (RB Waterfront Study to include Seaside Lagoon, Boat Launch) that the release of the RFP by Redondo Beach is premature when the requirements for King Harbor are not fully delineated nor understood by the city staff (“RB Waterfront study to include Seaside Lagoon, Boat Launch,” ER April 1, 2021). Is the dry boat storage a requirement of the Coastal Commission, as stated by Mark Hansen? How can Redondo Beach have a comprehensive plan, as suggested by Director Stephen Proud, without understanding the King Harbor requirements? The proposed RFP addresses the area between Quality Seafood and Portofino Way. However, could other harbor areas, without confiscating/destroying existing structures, accommodate the dry boat storage? I may be wrong, but I believe that the other harbor areas are fully utilized, because the dry boat storage requirement has not been satisfied to this date. Why is Redondo Beach spending $200,000 to $250,000 for a plan that needs to be altered because it does not satisfy the King Harbor requirements? The city council needs to undo the steps taken on March 16 and direct city staff to delineate King Harbor requirements that would satisfy the Coastal Commission requirements before contemplating further planning activities.

George Ikeda

Redondo Beach

 

Bruces have company

Dear ER:

Los Angeles County Supervisor Janice Hahn, State Senators Steve Bradford and Ben Allen and State Assemblyman, Al Muratsuchi, where will this stop (”LA County moves towards reparations for Bruce’s Beach,” ER Apr. 1)? Will you return the 30 other Bruce’s Beach properties that were also taken by eminent domain at the same time? How can your solution be considered fair to the taxpayers of 2021 and beyond? You want to rectify something that should have been appealed over 100 years ago if they disagreed with the court at the time. Makes no sense to rational people.

Rand Leaf

Manhattan Beach

 

 

10 for the money

Dear ER:

Senate Bill 10 would allow 10 units on lots zoned for a single family home (R-1). Some advocates of this bill suggest that having R-1 lots is immoral. What is immoral is cramming 10 units on a lot with no regard to whether the residents want that, or if there’s infrastructure in place, like schools, emergency responders, and parking for such a density onslaught. The brains behind this bill would remove the open space that people need to thrive (like yards for kids to play in), and kill the trees that give us shade and help us breathe, decimate the permeable land and replace it with non-draining material (lending to flooding). Streets are already stacked with cars, yet there’s a fantasy that because these units will be one-half mile from a bus stop, suddenly people will sell their vehicles and jump on the 232. This bill is a builder’s and union’s dream, dressed in the false notion of helping with housing. This bill’s writers don’t care about impacts on existing residents because when people moved from the density of cities to the suburbs for some more room and air to breathe, that was wrong. SB10 also says, to paraphrase: “Hey Everycity, you know those rules you have to help keep your areas livable? Well forget them. Our state rule will now nullify your stinking rules.” When the time comes, say no to SB 10.

Lara Duke

Redondo Beach

 

Density consciousness

Dear ER:

I am so very tired of cities supporting the NIMBY (not in my backyard) electorate. California needs more housing options and R10 could possibly help provide affordable housing to so many who have been and will be affected by this pandemic economy. It is up to us citizens to support taxes and encourage our city council to build the infrastructure needed to support an increase in population density. There are many beautiful residential beach communities in the world that are fantastic dwelling  communities, and tourist destinations, with density higher than R10. More tourists, more owners, more business and property taxes to support better infrastructure. Let’s begin to welcome others at all economic levels into our hearts and city. We all can learn much from one another, especially when we are in close proximity.

Sheila Troupe

North Redondo Beach 

 

Comments:

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