Letters to the editor: March 14, 2013

President is hurting the people

This current administration came up with the idea of sequestration, allowed it to happen, picked the most vital functions to be cut and advised implementers “to make it hurt.” The worst, most despicable and mean-spirited action of the president was to close the White House, the People’s House to tours, especially for our children.

There were numerous other choices; another mega vacation, close Camp David, furlough some of the 20 aides to Mrs. Obama, cancel a few “campaign” flights on Air Force One, or many other options.

It was a calculated, political “make- it-hurt” decision. The president should be ashamed. Voters have long memories.

Herb Tuttle, Rancho Bernardo

Community stays strong

I just wanted to take some time to acknowledge how much our community has gone through and how strong we have stayed as a whole.

Three years ago the beautiful Chelsea King was taken from our community in the most awful way, but what she didn’t know is that her death changed our community and brought us together under a common cause to help protect other girls against the same fate. The Chelsea’s Light Foundation just did their annual “Finish Chelsea’s Run” to raise money to help legislation go through Congress and also to help other kids succeed in life by giving scholarships.

I am so pleased we have not forgotten the bright soul and the beautiful life she led, I am so glad we have not stopped fighting for justice and to protect future generations. I am so glad to be part of a community that cares.

Courtney Riha, Rancho Bernardo

California is No. 2

We taxpayers owe a debt of gratitude to the Board of Equalization for adding a 3.54 cent tax increase to a gallon of gas. There is plenty of room to add a Solyndra, wind, or solar tax to the other nickel-and-dime taxes already on the books for a total of at least 39 cents per gallon.

As the Obama administration says, the higher the gas tax, the more money our Democrats will have to spend on other losing environmental projects even though they lose millions of taxpayer money. Solyndra lost about $582 million. After all, who cares that poor people and hard-working commuters are now able to help support Sacramento politicians, Hollywood and their rich environmental contributors with these taxes.

Sadly, we are not No. 1 in gas taxes. We in California are only No. 2 to New York state, but with help from Sacramento and their super Democratic majority, we could easily be No. 1 soon. Hurrah!

William Stamos, Rancho Bernardo

Turn red-light cameras back on

Regarding the Poway City Council’s March 5 decision to turn off the city’s red-light cameras for three months:

I understood that the benefits to having red-light cameras were:

• A reduction in the number of T-bone accidents by 53 percent over the seven-year period they have been operating.

• Revenues returned have been used for several traffic improvements.

• Sheriff’s deputies have been more effective, having been released from monitoring such junctions and spending time writing tickets.

The disadvantages? A few complaints from citizens regarding right-hand turns? Really?

The junction at Pomerado Road and Ted Williams Parkway was notorious for red-light running. When the cameras were first installed it was quite a flash bulb display when waiting at the lights. With the installation of the red-light system the behavior of traffic at this junction has improved considerably.

When you consider the speed at which traffic comes down Ted Williams Parkway toward the lights, without cameras in the future one can only anticipate red-light running to increase once people realize that, unless there are police monitoring the junction, they stand a good chance of getting away with it — unless of course they crash into some innocent driver coming the other way.

The mayor, who originally wanted the cameras to be done away with completely, agreed that covering up the cameras would be a “good way to determine whether the camera system is effective.”

What is he waiting for? The accident rate to increase to pre-camera levels to prove that red-light cameras do an excellent job in reducing accidents and deaths?

Poway had a red-light running problem — we installed cameras which reduced the accident rate — we are now turning them off. Why?

Gillian Pinsky, Poway

Lower business taxes

Many business owners and top-earners in California are considering moving to a different state? Why? Because the taxes are so high that it isn’t worth it to stay in the state.

No one likes to have their hard-earned money taken away from them. My stepfather, for example, is a small-business owner. He has been contemplating moving out of California in order to make a reasonable profit from his business. People like him are very upset over the rise in taxes especially on businesses in California. This isn’t fair to them, and taxes need to be lowered.

Paige Byrd, Rancho Bernardo

Red-light dangers

I strongly feel that turning off of red-light cameras is creating a much larger chance of cars to speed through that intersection to beat the red light. If more cars start to do that because they know that they can’t get caught for running a red light then, the odds are much higher for an accident to occur.

The roads are already unsafe. Why take the cameras away and make them more dangerous?

Dominic Contreras, Rancho Bernardo

New gun law needed

Recent mass shootings have become a huge problem in the United States. After a large number of deaths caused by inhumane crimes, why do some people still claim to own guns for their self defense?

As president Obama announced, Congress should pass a new gun control law as soon as possible so that no more tragedies terrify us. The government needs to make tighter gun regulations, check for all gun purchases, and ban assault weapons and high-quality ammunition clips.

Momoka Endo, Rancho Bernardo

Red-light stress

As the victim of two citations for allegedly running red lights, I read with interest and hope that Mayor Higginson asked the Poway City Council to terminate its contract for red-light cameras.

In the first instance, the light changed as I turned following a full-size bus. In the second instance, I stopped at a red light before making right-hand turn. To avoid a parked Metropolitan Transit System bus, I did not make a sharp turn and the camera clicked at me, even though I was not running the light.

I wanted to appear before the judge, but was told that Poway violators were to first see a man who, with his laptop, showed me brief video of what the camera caught. He said no judge would exonerate me. I wondered who employed him.

Since I live within a few minutes of the light at Poway and Pomerado roads, I’m often there, reminding myself not to fixate on it or worry that car behind will ram me if I stop at yellow light, but to pay attention to pedestrians and follow the traffic code.

As I don’t think my experience is unique, I hope the City Council understands the ramifications of photo-enhanced cameras.

Valerie Raymond, Poway

Save the surplus

Double thumbs down to the city manager’s idea to use a budget surplus to build a multi-purpose building at the city center.

It’s a one-time surplus which should be used to save money in the future. I vote for going solar on the all the city buildings, or using the money to underground the utilities in Poway that are still above ground.

Building a building to Mickey Cafagna, while “noble,” I don’t even think Mickey would be impressed. It’s another monument to a public official. The building will create maintenance and utility costs for what?

Christine Valle, Poway

Short URL: http://www.pomeradonews.com/?p=33803

Posted by Steve Dreyer on Mar 14 2013. Filed under Letters to the Editor, Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

11 Comments for “Letters to the editor: March 14, 2013”

  1. Amy Roost

    Mr. Tuttle, I could counter punch with my own evidence that John Boehner's office put together a slideshow in July 2011 that describes a “new sequestration process” that would cut spending across the board if the cuts weren’t made by other means.

    Bottom line is does it really matter whose idea the sequester was if both sides ultimately agreed to it?

    Furthermore, the sequester was supposed to be so beyond the pale that it would force the White House and Congress to come up with a deficit-reduction deal that was more finely honed.

    Hope springs eternal…

  2. David C.

    And Herb, you don't have to vote for Obama again no matter how long or short your memory is.

  3. Tom Yarnall

    Amy, no, it does not matter if both side agreed to it, but the doom and gloom spread by Obama and his henchmen about sequestration was irresponsible and they are now trying to salvage their argument by closing the White House and releasing illegals.
    Why punish patriots? If they want to release prisoners, why illegals? Are there not some red blooded Americans with marginal crime factors in federal prison?

  4. David C.

    So which is it Tom, no big deal, or a big disaster? On one hand you say that the doom and gloom was nothing, and in the next you imply that it's the worst thing since the Rosenbergs. You can't have it both ways.
    As I see it, the sequester will be death by a thousand cuts, no one thing will have a huge impact on the economy, but eventually it will all add up to some serious damage. That said, both parties knew the consequences when they signed on to the deal. Time will tell.

  5. Tom Yarnall

    David C, I have difficulty following your logic and can't imagine the relationship with a couple of traitors. Were they Democrats?
    Please allow me to give you a clear picture of my opinion..
    I do agree with the sequestration plan agreed to by the GOP and Obama. As sequestration approach Obama, as he has done since taking office, changed his mind because it would cause spending cuts which he vehemently opposes. When it was apparent the GOP would not budge he went into campaign mode and tried demonizing the the program and scaring many citizens, especially the weak and the sick.. He warned that students would lose their financial aid, that many children would not get vaccinations for measles and whooping cough. He warned that first responders would be compromised, Many White House janitors would lose their job. His chief hack, Napolitono reported cutbacks increased airport lines by 150 to 200% which was not, and still is not, true.
    Obama's apocalypse was a dud of the first order.
    I could go on, but won't bore you with things you don't want to hear.
    Obama overplayed his hand and his approval rating dropped significantly.
    Closing the White House to visitors was a cheap shot and has further eroded his reputation. He could have easily funded that activity by eliminating the $1.5 M to study why most lesbian are fat or the $27M used to teach Morocco citizens how make pottery. You surely don't agree with those programs——————, or do you?

    • David C.

      Tom, thanks for a nicely articulated response. Yes, I agree that there are programs that are less worthwhile than others, some that are downright puzzling how they got funded in the first place, and closing the White House to visitors is a travesty in order to save the $30M dollars (not sure where I'm getting that number) it costs to keep open annually, A mere pitance in the scheme of the sequester. However, the sequester required across the board cuts by design, not elimination of certain programs. It is this aspect, that the HOR essentially threw up its hands on its responsibility of managing the purse strings that infuriates me. Yes Obama came off as Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling, and it hasn't yet, but I think he was right in at least noting that 2 to 8% reductions across the board Will have an impact. So I find it's interesting that it's easier for fat researchers and pottery instructors to do more with their reductions than the rest of the federal government can do with theirs….maybe that's the lesson here.

    • David C.

      Tom, just to be clear, it's not just the HOR, it's also the Senate where our truly divided government seems to be paralyzed in doing anything that their moneyed constituencies would find objectionable. Our government these days operates by the golden rule, He who has the gold makes the rules.

  6. Rex Coe


    If you have recommendations for additional gun control laws, you should contact Sen. Feinstein. She is the main source of such legislation here in CA.

    "Why do some people still claim to own guns for their self defense?" Get real! Did you just recently arrive here in America? If you knew American History, you would know the answer to that question, duh.

  7. Tom Yarnall

    David C, Hopefully the sequester will be the trigger needed to get a true consensus on what is needed to keep our country "healthy".
    Yes, the HOR did draw a line in the sand and it will be interesting to see who, if anyone, spits across it first.
    Thanks for the dialogue.

  8. james

    I do agree with the sequestration plan agreed to by the GOP and Obama. As sequestration approach Obama, as he has done since taking office, changed his mind because it would cause spending cuts which he vehemently opposes.

Leave a Reply