‘DEAR RON’ LETTERS

In response to Ron Davis’ article about the Huntington Beach dog park

(“Surf City dog park has residents mutt-ering,” Dec. 7), I offer the

following: My two dogs and I have been frequent visitors to the park this

past year, and I wish to offer my viewpoints on the issue.

For expediency, I’ll use simple statements (I understand lawyers, like

Davis, appreciate that):

* I pass by the park twice a day going and coming from work, and I

always see dogs (and their owners) from the neighborhood walking to the

park. Obviously, then, Davis doesn’t mean all residents object to the

park.

* I’ve noticed, in the park, the noise from Edwards Street is quite

loud. How can you object to dogs a 100 yards away yet not be bothered by

cars going up or down Edwards Hill 50 feet away? And the closest houses

to the park are located right on Edwards Street.

* I live in Huntington Beach but am miles from either the train tracks

or the old gun range, yet I can (or could, in the case of the guns) hear

their noise, but I consider that life. If people want total quiet, they

should move to Baja and not live on Edwards Street, which is one of the

main streets in Huntington Beach.

Now, on the side of the homeowners, I agree there should be quiet

hours for the park, and they should begin at some set hour that’s

reasonable. From what I recall, the park is officially opened only during

daylight hours. That’s easy enough in the summer, but it gets a bit

difficult this time of the year for some dog owners who work late.

But, nevertheless, those regulations should be enforced. Maybe the

reasonable compromise is to simply enforce the hours. No litigation, no

lawyer’s fees (sorry, Ron), and peace should prevail. How about it, City

Council?

RAY STANN

Huntington Beach

Ron Davis is absolutely correct the dog park is a nuisance that should

not be allowed to continue. The city has an ordinance against noisy

animals that affect residential neighborhoods, but obviously feels this

ordinance should not apply to the city.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to the concept of a dog park, and

I don’t begrudge the many pet owners who use it, but this one is not in

the right location. It is unjust that residents should have to live in a

state of constant emotional distress over a facility created by the city.

The dog park should be shut down immediately. If the city chooses to

continue the operation of a dog park, it should search for a new location

that does not impact a residential neighborhood.

BART HOLLANDER

Huntington Beach

Come on, Ron Davis. You have broad shoulders, why carry a small chip

on them by blasting a dog park that offends a few who do not like the

joyous bark of a dog at play?

We now have on our City Council two new individuals that have a

similar attitude. They would sacrifice the desires of the majority of our

populace to surge on a positive note into the new millennium to provide a

swampy sanctuary called Little Shell for a few birds that contribute

absolutely nothing to broaden our city’s tax base to provide the

necessities to make our city the magnet that could be an equal competitor

to our neighboring cities.

Redevelopment is good; it helps projects that would improve our city

and make the city’s residents a partner to the desired improvements.

Eminent domain is different. It could be likened to a cancer that, as a

last resort, must be removed to allow the patient to maintain his or her

normal life. All negative aspects of the use of eminent domain must be

carefully examined before it is applied for the general good.

We cannot be held hostage by one or two elected officials that oppose

a cure only eminent domain will affect. Refusing a nasty tasting medicine

even though it will cure is only an attitude a shortsighted or not so

clear-thinking person will exercise. Let us take our medicine and assure

those opposed to redevelopment or eminent domain to not permanently

cripple our city and make it soon incurable.

In the past, Davis has broken barriers even though the practice seemed

unpopular at the time, and he shouldn’t pull into a protective shell when

the city needs him.

Please take note the remarks of Phillip R. Schwartze of the PRS group

(“Columnist off target with eminent domain remarks,” Dec. 7). Schwartze

states that he provided the city with a list of possible retailers and

restaurateurs with whom he has established relations for possible

inclusion on his property.

I guess I must have been out of the room when it was announced Ezralow

had bought the dilapidated mall, excluding Wards, and had developed a

theme.

I did not know Wards has taken away the owners’ desires and in a sense

is saying “do it my way or we will not budge.”

Why hasn’t Wards after all the years of mall decay, taken the steps

they claim to have taken since Ezralow stepped in the lion’s den?

Is it because Wards is banking on two newly elected council members to

be the bottleneck that will stop Ezralow from developing the property?

Go to it, Ron. The city needs your persuasive acumen now more than

ever.

BOB POLKOW

Huntington Beach