Measure C's balkanization
10-4
To the editor:
In his recent editorial, Roderick Greene retracted the CPO's
condemnation of Ojai's city officials concerning traffic woes.
No, he didn't apologize to his victims. He simply admitted for
the first time that our traffic problems are not the result of
future projects as those of us who deal in reality have said
all along.
Unfortunately, the rest of Roderick's comments simply rehash
the CPO's tired and worn- out anti-growth rhetoric replete with
the same old distortions, omissions and exaggerations. His oversimplified
claim that the Fulton Street, Los Arboles, Koire and Ojai Valley
Inn expansion projects will generate "1,000 additional car
trips per day" is a good example.
The Koire project was abandoned a while ago along with the 315
trips per day erroneously claimed by the CPO president. Still,
they continue referring to it in their ridiculous "Chicken
Little" act.
According to the CPO, Fulton Street represents "50-plus
additional cars" and Los Arboles " will generate 135
additional cars to the main road" (CPO president). As it
turns out, traffic studies provide a theoretical worst-case scenario
and do not give credit to previous use of a property when a new
use is "studied." Therefore, the traffic count attributed
to these projects does not represent "additional" trips,
but worst-case actual trips. In reality the Los Arboles project
will produce a drastic reduction in trips over the previous use
and the Fulton Street affordable housing will produce a slight
increase.
The OVI expansion is a golden example of considerate planning
as it relates to traffic mitigation. Instead of the additional
"646 average car trips per day" claimed by the CPO
president, the inn, along with our city officials have worked
extremely hard to find ways to fully mitigate all but 17 trips
per day. For Ojai, this represents a percentage increase of 7/100s
of 1 percent in exchange for more than $900,000 in tax revenue
to improve and maintain our infrastructure!
So, doing the math, that's about 67 additional trips per day
(not 1,000-plus) from all four projects sighted by the CPO to
justify their commandeering of Ojai's outstanding General Plan
via Measure C.
Next, Greene points out that our air quality is rated F because
"the topography of this small valley acts as a smog trap."
Wasn't this little valley's topography the same 30 years ago
when we had far less traffic and even worse air quality! Does
anyone remember the old standards?
He goes on to say that "under these circumstances (congested
roads), it is not an abridgement of property rights to require
developers, not taxpayers, to mitigate the additional traffic
their projects dump onto our streets." I think Mr. Greene
has much to learn about principles. Either Measure C abridges
property rights or it doesn't (Greene states that it would if
not for "circumstances"). The undesirability of crowded
streets (i.e., "circumstances") does not alter the
fundamental principles of justice, so no matter how expedient
it may be to shift the burden of this problem onto a select few,
doing so would violate principle and indeed it would constitute
a selective abridgement of a fundamental right.
Everyone who owns land in Ojai is a potential developer - the
artist who builds a commercial gallery or studio, the baker who
adds footage to his/her kitchen, the rancher who adds stables,
and the musician who builds a soundproof barn. All it takes to
become a target of Measure C is the desire to pursue a discretionary
project.
Measure C has stimulated the sort of divisive thinking that leads
to the balkanization of society and the victimization of innocent
scapegoats. Measure C is nothing more than a scheme to assign
arbitrary blame and punishment on those property owners who happen
along after Nov. 5 with plans to build their hard-earned share
of the Ojai dream.
On the other hand, if we share a common desire to mitigate the
traffic to which we all contribute, then to whatever extent there
is a financial burden associated with our goals all the taxpayers
in Ojai, including all of us developers, must chip in.
Now, back to Mr. Greene's letter. He claims that "Measure
C is flexible and can be amended by voters if projects the community
considers worthwhile generate traffic that cannot be mitigated."
This is completely untrue. There is no such provision in Measure
C. A superior court judge even ordered that this false claim
be expurgated from the official ballot arguments and admonished
the CPO for attempting to deceive the voters!
Mr. Greene and the CPO should simply do the honorable thing and
withdraw their support for Measure C, especially in light of
my recent conversation with Mr. Greene during which he admitted
to many unintended and unjust consequences of this "imperfect"
initiative in front of several witnesses. I challenge him to
concede that, although well-intended, the harm that Measure C
will visit upon this community does not warrant its passage into
law.
Richard Keit
Ojai
Seeking solutions to traffic woes
10-7
To the editor:
Re: Ojai Traffic
I guess I might try to put my "two cents" in concerning
this matter. I forgot the name of the author of a letter to the
editor who had an interesting solution to "downtown' traffic
(my apology). I wrote a response to that author's letter because
to me, at least, it sounded worthy. To restate.
Why does the city of Ojai still maintain their "drive"
to keep so many signals and crosswalks through the area? Why
are there so many crosswalks? It possibly can't be because the
so-called merchants want people to be able to walk across the
street? Or is it? What is the matter with taking about 50 percent
of those crosswalks out, and simply having people cross at the
block's end or beginning? Too simple? It only takes a short drive,
or walk, or bike ride to hit the area at Signal Street by the
post office. There is a crosswalk that is controlled by a signal.
Anyone wanting to go from the post office to one of the shops
simply waits for the signal to turn to "walk." But
then, why? Just walk about 100 feet and walk through the crosswalk
in midblock. It's OK, the crosswalk is there - but, as you walk
across and stop traffic in both directions, take a look at what
that walk across the street has done. Now, the traffic is backed
up at the signal, the traffic is now backed up past the old junior
high. Why? Because the powers that be don't want to look at
something as simple as this - a simple solution to at least ease
the traffic flow by taking out unnecessary crosswalks and signals.
Why in the world would the city want, or allow a signal at Fox
Street? It's a "T" intersection. Has anyone in the
city powers ever thought of maybe restricting traffic coming
out of Fox Street to right turn only? I would rather the signal
be removed and a simple stop sign be put up if the need to control
traffic at that intersection is so important.
Many people argue the traffic problem at the "Y." Take
a look at the road design. Two lanes coming into one. Two lanes
off of Maricopa Highway to Ojai Avenue goes from two lanes to
two lanes to one. Is there a solution there?
Maybe taking out the every block stops on Aliso might help with
easing traffic on Ojai Avenue.
I am not an engineer, but I do, as well as many other residents
of the valley, travel through "downtown" Ojai. Maybe
the citizens can come up with some ideas, some possible solutions
to present to the city, even via letters to the editor.
After spending 18-plus years in the valley, I have not heard
actual solutions to the traffic, but a lot of "bitching"
about it. Yet, I read many good ideas via the letter to the editor,
but I don't hear those be even addressed by the City Council.
Why? They're afraid that those who travel around the valley,
just might have a good idea?
I can understand this. Just watch the City Council on Channel
8. If you can. A very simple solution or resolution by that group
is impossible! The best I have heard or seen from watching the
City Council, "in action," is to put off something
until a later date. Why? From watching City Council meetings
on Channel 8, your total lack of ability to address a situation
and deal with it is very evident.
I suggest that all of us citizens of the valley keep pushing
for a real time solution to traffic. I also suggest that the
City Council start listening to its citizens.
Ray Houle
Ojai
Harnessing energy for peace
10-7
To the editor:
This weekend I had my car washed in Ojai by a spirited and energetic
group of men, women and children raising money to pay for the
medical treatment of 9-year-old Colby Chapman, who is stricken
with cancer.
I felt uplifted by these kindhearted people's determination to
help try saving Colby's life.
Then I was overwhelmed by a feeling of deep sadness because I
remembered that while these good members of our community were
preparing to help save a young boy's life this weekend, some
little boys and girls in Basra, Iraq, were blown to bits by U.S.
bombers last week.
We have been bombing Iraq ever since the Gulf War ostensibly
ended. Now the bombing has intensified. The Pentagon calls it
the "softening up" preceding an invasion of Iraq. What
this "softening up" entails is blasting the soft flesh
and bones of little children and their mothers and fathers and
grandmothers and grandfathers into a bloody pulp. All in our
name.
I heard the anguished voice of one of the grandfathers and the
grief-stricken screams of one of the mothers on the radio last
week.
How many thousands of Iraqi children (who are no different from
Colby and all the other children of this country) have we killed
with bombing and economic sanctions since the so-called end of
the Gulf War? How many more will be killed?
What kind of country are we becoming? After we invade Iraq, who
will we invade next? Who will be the next Saddam Hussein? My
friends and relatives around the world e-mail me to say that
the world is becoming afraid of the United States. Is that how
this giant of freedom and democracy wishes to go down in history?
A militaristic bully on the rampage? A stormtrooper state?
Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who is advocating establishing a
U.S. Department of Peace instead of a Department of War (today
the name "Department of Defense" is a misnomer), said
in his "Prayer for America" speech at USC earlier this
year: "For the sake of the children, I pray for a world
without end, not a war without end."
I pray, too, that the extraordinary energy, integrity and dedication
being displayed this weekend to save one child's life will also
be used to stop the war. We have to mobilize against the Iraqi
war just as we did against the Vietnam War. We stopped support
for the war then. If we can harness on a mass scale that awesome
energy I saw working for the good this weekend, we can stop this
war too.
Clive Leeman
Ojai
Bellicose letter lacks reasoning
10-7
To the editor:
In his recent letter to the editor (OVN, Oct. 2), Richard Keit
fatally undermined his otherwise fair comments on the proposed
invasion of Iraq by adding an ill-reasoned dimension.
Apparently Mr. Keit's intention was to rebut Dr. Bruce Gladstone's
"State of Mind" column of a week earlier, which argued
that our nation should pursue nonviolent solutions to problems
posed by Iraq before invading a country whose imminent threat
has not been convincingly articulated above a jabber of recycled
John Wayne cliches.
Mr. Keit's response to Dr. Gladstone was in essence a gratuitous,
"Shut up!" He argued that a trained and experienced
clinical psychologist is not qualified to comment on the mentality
that accompanies negotiation, peaceful conflict resolution, and
the causes of tribal or religious warfare. What he left out was
what better qualifies himself to do so.
Clinical psychologists spend years studying the intricate subtleties
of human motivation and behavior. Over its 2,400-year history
of integrating philosophy and science, the scholarly discipline
of psychology has accumulated an impressive archive of theory
and research that is one of humanity's great assets.
True, psychology is not in all aspects an exact science, but
neither is politics, medicine, nor any other endeavor that deals
with the incalculable mysteries of human consciousness. Even
physics, whose laws were once thought to epitomize scientific
precision, is granted the grace of humility by the fuzzy indeterminacy
of quantum mechanics.
Mr. Keit's philippic finally degenerates into ad-hominum illogic
when he cites the so-called "fact" that psychology
"attracts a disproportionate number of deeply disturbed
people to the profession." For good reason, he offers no
evidence to back up this off-the-wall assertion. And if there
were such evidence, would it not equally apply to clergymen,
creative artists, and power-mad politicians who would rush our
children off to a war that some military analysts predict would
cause from 10,000 to 50,000 American deaths?
So we might not be surprised that Dr. Gladstone and millions
of other patriotic Americans like him are reluctant to follow
the leadership of a president of painfully obvious intellectual
vacuity and shallow historical vision. When we recall that this
man achieved power in a bloodless coup engineered by his brother's
minions and a cadre of right-wing supreme court justices appointed
by his father, it becomes all-the-more essential to encourage
free and inclusive debate within an educated populace, especially
from people who dedicate their lives to studying human nature.
There are cogent arguments on both sides of the Iraq question,
and it may well be that a fair debate will eventually lead us
to a consensus that America's long-standing nuclear nonproliferation
policy can only be maintained by proactive military action. However,
this will not come about by parroting the administration's custom
of labeling any who disagree with it as "unpatriotic,"
or by shouting down contributions by insightful psychologists
or anyone else committed to our Jeffersonian, nonauthoritorian
democratic process.
John E. Nelson, M.D.
Ojai
Reality, not racism in letter
10-8
To the editor:
Re: "Writer racist and uninformed" letter by Robert
Lamarche
Lamarche: "Mr. Carmichael's comments are as racist and derogatory
as they are misinformed."
Where is there racism in any part of my opinion article? Islam/Moslem
is not a "race." Islamofacists come in all colors and
nationalities - I wouldn't leave any of them out. Inclusion is
the opposite of racism. Derogatory - yes, and always - against
those who hate us and want to exterminate us.
Lamarche: "The Islamic nations of the Middle East were for
nearly a millennium amongst the most advanced cultures of the
world, producing treasures in literature, art and science."
Yeah, well, they seem to have become the toilet bowl of the world.
Care to explain why? Experts will tell you it's because of despots,
dictators, fascists, tribalism - want more? Read something besides
your local newspaper for a change.
Lamarche: "Unfortunately, in every system of religious beliefs,
there is the chance that extremists and fundamentalists will
resort to violence to express their fear, frustration and despair.
America is certainly no stranger to this, and we cannot continue
holding the high moral ground while condemning "others."
Exactly when have American religious extremists resorted to violence
to parallel 9/11? Of course, we hold the high moral ground -
and will continue to do so as long as "they" are undemocratic
stagnating cultures led by tyrants who daily practice brutality,
corruption and torture. Is it "arrogant" or "racist"
to express such opinions? It's arrogant, but not racist. I plead
guilty to arrogance. That doesn't mean it's not true, does it?
Lamarche: "Nor can we keep looking the other way as our
corporations bleed other countries for their natural resources."
Oh, by the way, our corporations pay for those resources - it's
called the free market. That one was way too easy!
Lamarche: "The issues at hand are far more complex than
you - and most of our nation's current leaders - seem to comprehend,
and blasting away at the Middle East with guns and troops will
not solve anything."
Our current leaders don't comprehend the issues? They do know
that a bunch of Arabs and Muslim fanatics blew up the World Trade
Center, attacked the Pentagon, attacked the USS Cole, and various
embassies of ours. These fanatics are trying very hard to get
nuclear weapons to kill more Americans and they have all sorts
of "religious" rulings that assert the morality of
killing innocent men, women and children.
Where exactly do you think we plan to blast away in the Middle
East? Do you mean Iraq? News flash - for the last 11 years we
have never stopped blasting away at Iraq because they never stopped
blasting at us, even after "promising" to cease and
desist and signing all those papers with the U.N. It also seems
to me that by enforcing the no-fly zones with our guns and troops,
we most assuredly have saved thousands of Iraqi and Kuwaiti citizens
from Saddam's guns and troops. It seems pretty clear that diplomacy
has failed (and always will) with Saddam.
Blasting away won't solve anything? We can't go on letting barbarians
kill our people. Simply, we are left with two basic choices for
America. We can either: 1) wage and win this war in our enemies'
lands and (eventually) hearts and minds; or 2) we can simply
defend ourselves at home.
If we fight and win, we carry American values of freedom and
rule of law past our shores, and liberate oppressed men, women
and trampled lands. If we retreat behind our borders and play
defense, then we'll lose our American values - freedom, privacy,
trade - in the attempt to make ourselves safe.
If we do become isolationists, what happens when the terrorists/Islamofacists
finally acquire intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear,
biological or chemical capabilities? What would be your choice,
Robert? Taking out the regime that wants to use nuclear weapons,
or waiting around until all the nations who have these weapons
are forced to use them?
As a nation, we could probably become as safe and neutral as
Switzerland - just with a bigger, fascist army, unrestricted
profiling, and strip searches to get into the post office. But
as a people, we could never accept the retreat and humiliation.
Forget the "cycle of violence" and the "peace
process." History teaches us that the most lasting peace
is achieved when one side - preferably the worst side - is decisively
defeated and the regime's diseased organs are completely eliminated.
That's why national socialism, fascism and Japanese militarism
have not troubled us lately.
So, we can fight them there, or fight ourselves here. The choices
are that stark, the outcomes that drastic. It comes down to oppressive
homeland security, or bashing the bad guys until they cry "uncle."
I say, make them cry uncle!
Lamarche: "It is called brainwash, and is used wholesale
by our government and the industries that support it to foster
a false sense of patriotism and rally the people to their cause."
This is a joke, right? Our government brainwashes its people?
Well, you may be correct since the Democrats control the Senate
- but, we elected them, which cannot be said for 90 percent of
the Middle East countries. If you want real brainwashing, look
no further than Fidel. If you want to look farther, scope in
on Riyadh.
Our government should be reminding the Middle East countries
that Americans have shed blood for Muslim peoples three times
in the last decade. A lot of Arab countries can't say the same.
Would we be brainwashing by stating this fact?
Our industries brainwash us into a sense of false patriotism?
A small percentage is too busy being greedy and trying to cover
their behinds. Most are busy trying to make money so they can
prosper and keep people employed.
And, finally, what "got a hold of" me, sir, was Islamo-fanatics
purposely killing innocent Americans and trying to make the world
think we're bad people. You say, "I love this country and
I am proud to be an American, and would and will defend the USA
against aggression." Well start defending because the aggression
has commenced. If I were 30 years younger I'd be on a carrier
in the Persian Gulf chalking my initials on laser-guided and
JDAM bombs.
Dennis Carmichael
Ojai
Schools play part in traffic solution
10-10
To the editor:
If the valley is to solve its perceived traffic problems, it
is imperative that the school district make some changes in schedules.
Why are mothers driving able-bodied children to school when said
children probably have bicycles available?
Because school begins too early. Start school no sooner than
8 o'clock and see the difference. I recently had occasion to
drive to the East End and found myself facing a stream of SUVs
coming west. Apparently, children are incapable of walking home
from school in the afternoons. What are these mothers thinking?
Fresh air and exercise are supposed to be good for children.
Without the traffic created by these vehicles, there would be
more fresh air and safer walking conditions.
Solving traffic problems begins with each of us. Think about
what you can do to reduce traffic.
Gwen Erickson
Ojai
Sees need for enforcement
10-14
To the editor:
Only in Ojai would someone complain about too much traffic law
enforcement. Rather than forming a commission to denigrate the
police efforts to make the crowded Ojai Valley streets safer,
we should be organizing to support and encourage them.
I spend my volunteer hours driving a Help of Ojai (RSVP) van,
which allows me to observe firsthand many infractions of the
law and examples of inconsiderate, discourteous and aggressive
driving behavior. Believe me, they are numerous. Traffic in Ojai
is very bad and requires the utmost in defensive driving. So,
you people who are complaining, put your efforts into teaching
good defensive driving techniques and respect for the California
traffic code. When you see a deputy, give him a wave and a thumbs-up.
Dick Schneider
Oak View
© 2002 The Ojai Valley
News
More letters
to the editor...
Return
to editorial search
Back to the news
|
