Letters to the Editor: Feb. 2, 2012

Letters appearing in the Poway News Chieftain:

No fan of Amy Sandberg

Always enjoy reading Ms. Sandberg’s attempt (Jan. 12) to explain things for the ill-informed in your circulation.

If her headline had been “Republicans oppose an illegal electorate,” I am sure her rationale would have been more concise and relevant. I guess she holds ACORN out as a bastion of fairness and democracy and suggests that having to register as a voter and provide identification that confirms you are legal as a bridge too far.

Richard Taylor, Poway

Cut expenses before raising taxes

Regarding the Jan. 19 story, “RB man pushes for $50 billion for education,” I offer a few comments.

I agree with Mr. Mason’s goals for better K-12 and higher education. But I disagree that the means to that end is higher taxes. In my opinion, we should hold our elected representatives and our governor to a higher standard. California is not under-taxed, it is over-spent.

Before anyone votes to raise California taxes, I urge them to examine 10 examples of government waste that our governor and legislature need to deal with. We need to hold their feet to the fire on these spending issues before there is any talk of higher taxes. These 10 examples of government waste are:

1. Duplicative agencies;

2. Health care fraud and waste;

3. Unemployment payments;

4. Government employees and commissions;

5. Prevailing wage;

6. Workers’ compensation

7. Prisons;

8. Government schools;

9. Illegal aliens;

10. Surplus property;

I would ask my fellow citizens to educate themselves on these issues before voting on any tax increase initiative. If our state government refuses to deal with these issues, the next ballot initiative I want to vote on is one to return our state legislature to a part-time job. If we can’t have better state government, let’s have less of it.

Rex Coe, Poway

Her dog didn’t do it

Around lunchtime one day last week, I opened my front door to find a small brown paper bag on my doorstep. Someone had written the following on both sides of the bag. “That is SO RUDE to not clean up your dog’s POOP!!! Especially on Midland Elementary School’s grass! That is breaking the law and you are on camera. SO RUDE!!”

First of all, I personally do not walk my dog there. My neighbor’s son-in-law comes once per week to walk the dogs around the block. I immediately took the bag and asked him if he had cleaned up after the dogs. He said, “Yes, I always clean up after them, but there’s always fresh poop around and, today, (my dog) went up to it and smelled it.”

So, if you are reading this, and you took all the trouble to pick up dog poop, put it in a plastic bag, then in a paper bag and, obviously, follow the dog walker to my house, why not ring the bell and talk to me? Or, at least leave your name.

Yes, I agree that we need to educate pet owners to pick up after their dogs. I myself have found little presents left on my front lawn, and it’s very annoying. My neighbor’s cats use our flower beds as cat boxes, which is particularly smelly and could, potentially, be a health hazard.

If whoever the person is who bothered to go to all this trouble would come and see me with the photo or video of my dog walker not cleaning up, I would be more than happy to reprimand him, apologize for the mess and make sure he does pick up from now on. But, if you have nothing, then you can come back and pick up the bag.

Christine Ouang, Poway

Letters appearing in the Rancho Bernardo News Journal:

Responses to Seven Oaks critic

Referring to Glen Vaughan’s Jan. 26 letter:

Mr. Vaughan’s phony claim that the Seven Oaks Nominating Committee didn’t do its job is what he wants your readers to think. It ignores the truth.

The Seven Oaks Nominating Committee openly posted requests for candidates to volunteer to run for the board for two months, beginning in November, and they made great effort through phone calls and personal contacts to find persons well-qualified to serve on the board of Seven Oaks. Neither Mr. Vaughan nor any of the other three who chose to submit nominating petitions the day after our “Candidate’s Forum” on Jan. 23 had contacted the committee. In fact, three of those four actually attended that forum, without revealing their intent to submit a nomination petition the very next day!

Mr. Vaughan and three others chose, instead, to take advantage of an erroneous article in our January newsletter that said the deadline for submission of nominating petitions was “January 24” when the committee had on a number of occasions issued and posted flyers that the deadline for submitting nomination petitions was Jan. 20. This error should have been caught, but unfortunately it was not. Perhaps these four saw an opportunity to avoid having to explain their motives for board membership in front of an audience of members at our Candidate’s Forum on Jan. 23. At any rate, all four of their “nominating petitions” appeared in the office on Jan. 24.

Persons “Nominated by Petition” have not been interviewed by the nominating committee; they are, for all practical purposes, self-nominated.

Elaine Jeter, Rancho Bernardo

Jeter serves on the Seven Oaks board.

It is time that someone responds to Mr. Vaughan’s accusations about this Seven Oaks board, and about Seven Oaks in general.

Mr. Vaughan was elected to the board prior to the present board and during his second year was made president. As president, he forced his own interpretation of Robert’s Rules of Order on the board and became quite dictatorial. Past and present presidents refrain from making motions and voted only in a tie, as is customary. Mr. Vaughan as chairman made and seconded many motions and voted on all of them, as he tried to ramrod his agenda through.

The money spent on attorneys that he complains about was partially due to a mediation that he encouraged, having to do with tree height restrictions, and an individual owner’s belief of having the right to a certain view. His board also spent money for an arborist to ascertain the age of said tree which determined that the tree was over 30 years old and grandfathered in, thus exempt from the trimming requirement. The entire board agreed, but Mr. Vaughan insisted on a written opinion from the attorney. Thousands were needlessly spent because of one person who thought that they were entitled to the destruction of their neighbor’s property.

There is no law in our state that someone has a right to a view. The attorney informed the board that the only way that a person has a right to a view is if it were in the deed for the property.

Mario Zanelli, Rancho Bernardo

Zanelli is a former Seven Oaks board member.

Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=21097

Posted by Steve Dreyer on Feb 1 2012. Filed under Letters to the Editor, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry