Emoting about emojis

Manhattan Beach is one of the best communities in these United States to live, raise your family and successfully age. There are many reasons that make this so, such as our weather, our schools and our great public safety departments. However, what really sets this community apart is our residents and how they treat each other. MB residents are kind, respectful, caring, civil, well mannered and, most of all, good neighbors. So, it is understandable that the residents of our community are disturbed, even dismayed, by the behavior of the owner of the now infamous “Emoji House.” This behavior is not consistent with what we have come to expect from our neighbors; in fact, this behavior is repugnant to, and contrary to, how we expect our neighbors to treat one another in our community. The fact that the owner, who was clearly breaking the law for profit, was running a “hotel” in a residential zoned neighborhood, only adds to the “wrongfulness” of the owner’s behavior. I thank our City Council for reaffirming the City’s ban on short-term rentals, thereby protecting and preserving the “residential charter” of our community. That “residential character,” that clearly benefits our families, is the cornerstone to our community being a great community to live, raise your family and successfully age. I know that I feel blessed to call Manhattan Beach home, and I know our residents feel that same way that I do.

—Mark Burton, Manhattan Beach

NOAA administrator

I am troubled by the nomination of Barry Myers as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator. His career of opposing the mission of NOAA and the National Weather Service make him unsuitable to the role. He should not be placed in charge of an agency that he actively lobbied against and I urge Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Harris not to support his nomination.

Myers is also a climate denier. This is serious and inappropriate for the position he’s been nominated for. We are in a climate emergency, and the next ten years are make or break as far as our survival goes. Every day we indulge anti-science leaders dragging us in the wrong direction is another day we endanger our children’s future. Our elected officials must speak out about this loudly. Climate change is my top concern. Without a habitable planet to live on nothing else matters.

—Sarah Peterson, Manhattan Beach

Loading and unloading

My sweet summer is gone. Balmy temperatures cannot mask the chill in the air for those of us who live around Manhattan Beach public schools, as each new semester routinely brings with it a plague of incivility and entitlement from those parents who treat our private property and the surrounding public roadway as an extension of their children’s campus.

For those adults who need an education: California Vehicle Code Section 22651(d), prohibits blocking driveways without consent. Not even “just for a minute.” According to the EPA, leaving your gasoline-engine vehicle idling for ten minutes produces about the same pollution as half a mile of driving; even one minute of idling puts more carbon monoxide in the air than smoking 3 packs of cigarettes. If you don’t care about marinating my neighbors and I with pollutants, just remember you’re doing it to yourself and your children as well. And finally, the middle of a busy street is an unlawful and dangerous place to use as your personal loading and unloading zone.

A little common sense, courtesy and respect shouldn’t be too much to ask for.

—Stephanie Robins, Manhattan Beach

Elders as commodity

Beach Cities Health District is planning to build an assisted living facility on the South Bay Hospital property in Redondo Beach. The BCHD board intends to change the current property from an “underperforming asset into a performing asset in order to generate revenue to cover our operating budget.” In short, this means that the purpose for building the assisted living facility is to use elder care as an investment vehicle to fund the current BCHD programs and services. In my view, this monetizing of elder care is not how we, the Redondo Beach residents, want BCHD to spend our public funds or use our public property. It is dehumanizing to consider elder care as just another “performing asset.” Using elder care solely as a financial asset flies in the face of BCHD’s mission of promoting community health especially when the interest in elder care is merely for profit making. As a senior, I’m appalled that my worth and the worth of others in my age group is sold in the marketplace as a “performing asset” reducing our value as contributing members of our community. BCHD’s attitude reflects a disconnect with the real purpose of assisted living: caring for our older adults. What’s next after monetizing elder care? Perhaps monetizing childcare or the BCHD fitness center? BCHD needs to come up with an alternative plan for the property that serves the entire community and celebrates the worth of elders not demeans them as merely commodities in the marketplace.

—Sheila Lamb, Redondo Beach

RB transition to county fire

Want to jump out of an airplane with a backpack instead of a parachute? Three Redondo Beach city councilmembers do.

You could have read a study showing 99% of people jumping with the backpack survive. What the “backpack study” doesn’t tell you is the plane is on the ground. Missing or faulty information is catastrophic to critical decision making, however, that is what Emdee, Horvath and Gran are counting on, blissful ignorance and incomplete information.

We have serious financial challenges ahead and certain councilmembers are counting on numbers from a fire chief who will likely lose his position with an L.A. County Fire takeover and staff who may see hours reduced or positions eliminated. What do you think they’ll tell you?

Staff presented a chart with Work Comp Claims expenses to remain with Redondo for fiscal 2018-2019 at more than $1.3 million.

Public Records show actual incurred for Fiscal 2018-2019 was just over $166,000 in paid claims.

Public Records show actual incurred in Fiscal 2017-2018 was just over $341,000 in paid claims.

Why more than a $1 million discrepancy between the staff report and actual paid claims incurred?

Off by $1 million each year for ten years?

No raises for fire personnel factored into analyzed ten-year period?

Why no other charges such as overtime, building improvements or up-staffing for increased call volume?

Do they want you to jump out of an airplane with a backpack instead of a parachute?

With the impending fiscal crisis now unexplored we have done just that.

—Eugene Solomon, Redondo Beach

Load comments