Our Readers Write: Point La Jolla, La Jolla cityhood, vendors, logo
Letters to the editor
Closing Point La Jolla year-round is a mismanagement plan
I’m very disheartened about the city of San Diego’s recent decision for the management plan of Point La Jolla to extend to a year-round closure of access, intended to provide increased safety with the sea lions and allow them to proliferate throughout the area (“San Diego planning year-round closure of Point La Jolla,” April 20, La Jolla Light).
The city and sea lion advocates consider the plan a win, but everyone actually loses in the far greater sense here, while Scripps Park continues to further deteriorate and suffer under this very myopic and environmentally reckless city management plan.
For well over a hundred years, Scripps Park has been a favorite destination used by both San Diegans and visitors from around the world. The spectacular, dynamic shoreline, including world-famous La Jolla Cove and its offshore waters, are a recreational, environmental and ecological resource of worldwide importance. The park receives over a million visitors yearly to enjoy the abundant leisure opportunities and take in the special scenic and natural beauty.
However, in the last few years, the park’s condition has significantly declined and is coupled with the presence of hundreds of pinnipeds. The once-thriving tide pools in the area have been destroyed, and tests of The Cove beach continually show bacteria levels that exceed health standards, with advisories to avoid contact. There are threats to the fisheries in the sensitive bordering State Marine Reserve, increasing beach and bluff closures, crumbling park infrastructure and ruination of landscaping, plus irritating stench, unsightly orange cones and barriers and yellow tape throughout, and many more negative consequences.
A proper Point La Jolla management plan should recognize that the area is an integral part of a unique urban coastal setting and community. Locally based, long-term park conservation plans can help communities invest and protect their environment and natural resources, improve quality of life and preserve critical elements of the local heritage, culture and economy. And everyone wins with that kind of plan.
President, La Jolla Parks & Beaches
— — —
Seceding from San Diego could be very costly for La Jolla
I am concerned that the effort by a small group of citizens to form a new city of La Jolla is a bad idea for both individuals within La Jolla and for all the citizens of San Diego.
The articles produced in the La Jolla Light by Elisabeth Frausto and Ashley Mackin-Solomon have been very informative.
I think the most important point raised is that to secede from the city, the secession may need to be “cost-neutral” to the city of San Diego.
I was a little surprised to see that an earlier study indicated it would only cost the “new La Jolla” about $4.6 million per year for three years. This amount seems extremely low, unless the current La Jolla is receiving services equal to 97 percent of tax revenue generated from the La Jolla community.
Per one of the articles (“What are the hurdles to La Jolla secession, and who’s trying to jump them?” April 13), La Jolla generates 7.3 percent of property tax and sales tax revenue of the city of San Diego. With the proposed fiscal 2024 city general-fund budget of $2 billion, La Jolla would contribute about $144.5 million.
The city of San Diego currently has insufficient revenue to meet its stated operating ratios and completely fund the city’s needs. For example, the city is not currently meeting its police officer to citizens ratio. So most likely there is minimal possibility for the city of San Diego to save money on police services if La Jolla secedes from the city.
Therefore, if the city of San Diego cannot reduce its expenditures by 7.3 percent ($144.5 million a year), the new La Jolla might be liable for the difference between the cost savings and lost revenue.
— — —
Excluding UC San Diego from La Jolla cityhood seems based in politics
I have been following the movement to make La Jolla its own city for the past few years, and I have always believed it to be an interesting prospect. But the article published in the April 20 edition (“Maps and management of a proposed city of La Jolla,” La Jolla Light) led me to suspect there is a political motivation behind the movement for cityhood.
Many of those who support cityhood wish to exclude UC San Diego from the city of La Jolla because of the “transient nature of the student population.”
No matter what one thinks of cityhood, it is a dangerous precedent to make the argument that including UC San Diego in the city’s boundaries would create “instability in La Jolla government where there will be this constant unknown” (to quote Keene Simonds of the San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission). That “constant unknown” is called the democratic process, and the right to vote in local, state and national elections needs to be preserved for the students and faculty who call La Jolla home, whether for four years or for the rest of their lives.
Excluding UC San Diego students from voting in [La Jolla] elections smacks of embrace of anti-democratic control.
— — —
Vendors still operating at Scripps Park is a failure of local leadership
In regard to the April 20 article with updates from Councilman [Joe] LaCava (“La Jolla Parkway repaving now delayed to May 1, San Diego councilman says,” La Jolla Light), his perspective of the vendor situation is completely misleading and
To claim that “there’s actually been really good enforcement and education” hasn’t been demonstrated since the first week of the supposed enforcement, as noted by the increase in vendors [at Scripps Park].
Can he explain how providing a service (tattoos) and selling tie-dye T-shirts (as seen in the article photo) is associated with a First Amendment right?
And two vendors losing their permits is insignificant to the number of vendors operating there every day when they are not supposed to operate there at all.
Shame on him for trying to justify his obvious failure!
— — —
Logo for new signs doesn’t do La Jolla justice
Were members of the La Jolla Village Merchants Association trying to pick the worst La Jolla logo on purpose? (“La Jolla merchants group awards contract and chooses locations for directional signs,” April 20, La Jolla Light.)
The script logo is virtually unreadable at a glance. The words “La Jolla” should at least be capitalized, and the font is way too compacted.
We already know about LJ ... why make it difficult for out-of-towners to comprehend our name?
This logo makes our town look small-time — with small print.
— — —
What’s on YOUR mind?
Letters published in the La Jolla Light express views from readers about community matters. Submissions of related photos also are welcome. Letters reflect the writers’ opinions and not necessarily those of the newspaper staff or publisher. Letters are subject to editing. To share your thoughts in this public forum, email them with your first and last names and city or neighborhood of residence to firstname.lastname@example.org. You also can submit a letter online at lajollalight.com/submit-a-letter-to-the-editor. The deadline is 10 a.m. Monday for publication in that week’s paper. Letters without the writer’s name cannot be published. Letters from the same person are limited to one in a 30-day period. See the full policy at lajollalight.com/policy. ◆
Get the La Jolla Light weekly in your inbox
News, features and sports about La Jolla, every Thursday for free
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the La Jolla Light.