"Letter to the Editor" published in the SD Union-Tribune Comments section:
As a former Coastal Commission staff member, I was saddened to read about Patricia McCoy's removal from the Commission after being raked over the coals by the Union-Tribune and other publications. Her unforgivable sin -- to further scrutinize San Diego's secondary sewage treatment waiver -- was voting in favor of coastal protection.
The commonly held perception of the Commission being strongly environmentally slanted ("out of control") is far from the truth, and McCoy's dismissal is but one example of the undue influence that money, power, and politics play on this group. According to the Sierra Club, McCoy's pro-coastal voting scores for the last two years were only 35% and 47%, and yet this was too much for Assembly Speaker Herb Wesson and his pro-development cronies.
In the late 1990s, when Democrats gained control of the State Governorship, House and Senate, coastal advocates were optimistic that new members on the Commission would finally balance out the environmentally-hostile appointments of the past. Unfortunately, these hopes have been bitterly disappointed time and time again. I applaud Patricia McCoy for a job well done, and I hope that Scott Peters can perform equally as well or better on behalf of protecting our beautiful coastal areas.
BRENT MCDONALD
San Diego
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
Thursday, August 26, 1999
City panders to developers, not residents
Letter to the San Diego Union Tribune (published):
Re: "A plan for Mission Bay" (Editorial, Aug. 15):
I never used to be able to understand why the City of San Diego seemingly encourages large-scale tourism projects with immense hotels that often are sited along our beautiful bays, where they effectively limit enjoyment of these resources by year-round residents. Then it hit me: the pandering to development and tourist dollar makes perfect sense when viewed within the context of the transient occupancy tax (TOT).
Ever since Proposition 13 locked in property taxes at 1978 rates, San Diego has had to look for alternative methods of financing the government machine. The TOT is just one of the creative techniques made necessary because of the staggering losses in local property tax revenues. Do the math: while the cost of providing services has risen, the amount of money collected from property taxes has remained relative constant. Therefore, in order for local government to function, it must find new sources of revenue -- new development and/or new hotels.
But shouldn't the City's first responsibility be to its residents? I would venture that many San Diegans live here for the exceptional quality of life available. But that won't last when the City panders to developers, approving mega-hotels on the waterfront which block public access and allowing ever-expanding development which degrades the environment and worsens traffic congestion.
Growth for the sake of growth is cancer. When will it end? Where is the City's vision of the future? Does it have one? Or is it too concerned with the balance sheet to think about what kind of City future residents will live in?
BRENT C. MCDONALD
Pacific Beach
Re: "A plan for Mission Bay" (Editorial, Aug. 15):
I never used to be able to understand why the City of San Diego seemingly encourages large-scale tourism projects with immense hotels that often are sited along our beautiful bays, where they effectively limit enjoyment of these resources by year-round residents. Then it hit me: the pandering to development and tourist dollar makes perfect sense when viewed within the context of the transient occupancy tax (TOT).
Ever since Proposition 13 locked in property taxes at 1978 rates, San Diego has had to look for alternative methods of financing the government machine. The TOT is just one of the creative techniques made necessary because of the staggering losses in local property tax revenues. Do the math: while the cost of providing services has risen, the amount of money collected from property taxes has remained relative constant. Therefore, in order for local government to function, it must find new sources of revenue -- new development and/or new hotels.
But shouldn't the City's first responsibility be to its residents? I would venture that many San Diegans live here for the exceptional quality of life available. But that won't last when the City panders to developers, approving mega-hotels on the waterfront which block public access and allowing ever-expanding development which degrades the environment and worsens traffic congestion.
Growth for the sake of growth is cancer. When will it end? Where is the City's vision of the future? Does it have one? Or is it too concerned with the balance sheet to think about what kind of City future residents will live in?
BRENT C. MCDONALD
Pacific Beach
Thursday, June 11, 1992
Jetty construction plans
Letter (published) to the Peninsula Beacon weekly community newspaper:
I am concerned about the proposed work on the Dog Beach jetty as mentioned in The Beacon on May 21. I believe that construction of a "9-foot-deep by 1,200-foot-long weir" involving the "removal and relocation of many of the rocks that make up the jetty" would adversely affect the surf in the area. Under certain conditions, the jetty causes sand bars to form, which can create a classic peeling right. Alternation of the jetty would surely impede the formation of these waves.
In addition, as a civil engineer, I disagree with Art Shak's assessment of the San Diego River's risk of flooding. The chance of a 100-year flood occurring is defined as 1 percent each year. The chance does not increase exponentially each year as he asserts. In the case of a large flood, Dog Beach would likely be washed into the Pacific and would not hinder the flow of the San Diego River anyway. Apparently the Army Corpos of Engineers needs to exaggerate the chances of a flood in order to justify spending $1.3 million and eliminating yet another surf break.
Brent McDonald
Ocean Beach
I am concerned about the proposed work on the Dog Beach jetty as mentioned in The Beacon on May 21. I believe that construction of a "9-foot-deep by 1,200-foot-long weir" involving the "removal and relocation of many of the rocks that make up the jetty" would adversely affect the surf in the area. Under certain conditions, the jetty causes sand bars to form, which can create a classic peeling right. Alternation of the jetty would surely impede the formation of these waves.
In addition, as a civil engineer, I disagree with Art Shak's assessment of the San Diego River's risk of flooding. The chance of a 100-year flood occurring is defined as 1 percent each year. The chance does not increase exponentially each year as he asserts. In the case of a large flood, Dog Beach would likely be washed into the Pacific and would not hinder the flow of the San Diego River anyway. Apparently the Army Corpos of Engineers needs to exaggerate the chances of a flood in order to justify spending $1.3 million and eliminating yet another surf break.
Brent McDonald
Ocean Beach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
