Letters

Hermosa Beach bike lanes

In response to a letter in the April 1 issue ["Shared car and bike lanes," The Beach Reporter, 4/1/21], critical of the new bike lanes, I want to express how amazing the new bike lanes have been. That letter almost seems like an April Fool's Day joke. Removing the bike lanes would be a step back and ruin what the city has gained.

Those who want to remove the bike lanes are the silly and entitled individuals. Everyone I have talked to about these lanes, including those who have come into the city to visit, love them. If safety is a problem (which I have not yet experienced), the police should step up enforcing the laws against the out-of-control car drivers, who are the ones that most flout laws in their multi-ton vehicles.

To fight the ill-effects of climate change and to improve the livability of Hermosa Beach, the citizens should make the city more favorable to bicyclists and pedestrians, not prioritizing the dangerous, polluting automobile. The first step in this is keeping the new bike lanes.

—Mel Guerry, Hermosa Beach

Acknowledgement about Bruce's Beach

Re: City of MB/Bruce's Beach task force recommendation

Absolutely no apologies! It is absurd that we should apologize for our ancestors ... who only did what was normal and acceptable at that time. I'm not saying it was right ... but it was acceptable and those were the times.

I am 100% in favor of an acknowledgement. You can't apologize for something that was a normal and acceptable occurrence. Up until recently, gay marriage was not acceptable or legal; women received less pay for equal work; and spanking children was normal. Are we to apologize to the gays, women and children who were wronged? We, as a society, learned from it and changed. All we can do now is acknowledge what happened 100 years ago and vow to be a better community.

Manhattan Beach is a welcoming community. As a 56-year resident of MB, I've seen the city evolve from the sleepy little beach town it once was. And while we're at it, what kind of artwork could possibly cost $350,000 for Bruce's Beach park? Please spend our tax dollars wisely. $350,000 in most other cities would be enough to build a house ... and we're going to use it for artwork?

—Helena Burke, Manhattan Beach

Apology for Bruce's Beach

My husband Jim and I would like to add our names to those listed in the advertisement in last week's issue of The Beach Reporter [4/1/21], residents who "support a just and welcoming Manhattan Beach" and feel an apology is necessary.

Former mayor Amy Howorth spoke during the public comments portion of the March Manhattan Beach City Council meeting. Her comments generated an anonymous letter, challenging her courage. A resident too cowardly, too spineless, too chickens**t to sign their name, demanded that she apologize in this newspaper. If this individual truly had the courage of their conviction, they would either sign their name to the letter or demand it publicly in a Letter to the Editor. This individual is emblematic of the MB's self-titled "network of many."

It's almost as if Manhattan Beach has its very own branch of the KKK. It's an open secret as to who bears responsibility for allowing — enabling — this malignancy to thrive and grow. This city's racism, and its leadership's unwillingness to correct a wrong, evolve, and lead by example, is national news. Well done. Thanks for bringing utter shame and disgrace to town.

—Karen Boysen, Manhattan Beach

Reason for apologizing

Apologize to what family for what family? Clearly this is a racist request: Yes, skin color remains important — but only to those who have an emotional (and possibly a political) need for it to seem important. Measured by social harmony, this psychological condition is an unhealthy dysfunction.

An “apology” for what skin-color “families” believed 100 years ago bolsters the idea that it is important to maintain an empathy with skin-color “families” today. It is time for us to diagnose this request as the fundamentally racist thing that it is and rid ourselves of this primitive foolishness.

Do not satisfy those who spread this virus and someday we will be rid of this disease.

—Don Spencer, Manhattan Beach

Zoning for single family homes

SB 10 is the bill that would allow 10 units on lots zoned for a single family home (R-1). Some advocates of this bill suggest that to have R-1 lots is immoral. What is immoral is cramming ten units on a lot with no regard to whether the residents want that, or if there's infrastructure in place, like schools, emergency responders, and parking for such a density onslaught. The brains behind this bill would remove the open space that people need to thrive (like yards for kids to play in), and kill the trees that give us shade and help us breathe, and decimate the permeable land and replace it with non-draining material (lending to flooding). Streets are already stacked with cars, yet there's a fantasy that because these units will be a half-mile from a bus stop, suddenly people will sell their vehicles and jump on the 232.

This bill is a builder's and unions' dream, dressed in the false notion of helping with housing. This bill's writers don't care about impacts on existing residents because when people moved from the density of cities to the suburbs for some more room and air to breathe, that was wrong. SB10 also says, to paraphrase: "Hey Everycity, you know those rules you have to help keep your areas livable? Well forget them. Our state rule will now nullify your stinking rules." When the time comes, say no to SB 10.

—Lara Duke, Redondo Beach

Offshore wind generation

Californians are no strangers to outages, wildfires, and extreme temperatures; we must develop clean energy sources to eliminate carbon emissions and reduce these threats to our state. Offshore wind is a solution to many of our energy problems.

The Biden Administration recently announced it wants to develop 30 GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030 across the United States. California can help meet that goal by beginning to develop offshore wind off its coast. Assemblymember Chiu's bill, AB 525, sets an offshore wind planning target for 3 GW by 2030 and 10 GW by 2040. Taking advantage of powerful coastal winds will not only help fight climate change, but increase grid resilience.

Californians have been utilizing solar power for decades, and offshore wind — which blows most powerfully at night — serves as a complement to solar panels that go offline when the sun sets. AB 525 would put us on track to build the first offshore wind turbines on the west coast and the inclusion of a specific target will get projects off the ground in a timely manner. Urge your legislator to support AB 525 today.

—Isabella Sanchez, Redondo Beach

Contact Lisa Jacobs lisa.jacobs@TBRnews.com or follow her on Twitter @lisaannjacobs.

Load comments