MAILBAG - Aug. 10, 2006

No need for senior center on open space

Huntington Beach should not build a senior center on open space at Central Park. We should not use our open space for a use that can easily be satisfied at another (already developed) site. Since the recommendation to build at Central Park is a bad decision, putting the decision to a vote is an insulting waste of time and voter money. Using open space is always the cheapest and easiest site selection for any building project. Using this limited thinking, we might as well develop every inch of park land and open space. Park land should be valued at a premium and then compared to other options.

For example: Directly across the street from the park site is the library/ballfield. Why not add a second story to the library for the senior center? That will save money by eliminating the need to build a large parking lot, using the existing parking lot. It will save money on maintenance, as the same security and cleaning crews can be used. The higher construction cost of adding a second story is justified to save open space and maximize use of an existing site. We need to think about the future for all residents — not just the baby boom blip in population that is now turning into seniors.

If anything is put to the voters, it should be in two stages. Give the people the four best options, with pros and cons for each. Take options with the two highest vote totals and put them in a runoff election to determine the winner. Use the Internet to hold the election to minimize expense. That would be a true people’s choice.

ANDREW GILBERT

Huntington Beach

Senior center should reflect active lifestyle

A new senior center should reflect the youth and new, active lifestyle enjoyed by most of today’s seniors. It should be colorful, lively and project an enthusiasm that is shared by our community’s seniors.

For example, refer to some of the designs for the Walt Disney Concert Hall. The same guy designed a house that is on the boardwalk in Venice Beach.

TIM ENGEL

Anaheim

Rohrabacher wrong on global warming

I have never been under the impression that Dana Rohrabacher is a genius; however, if a quote attributed to him is accurate, then his intelligence may be venturing deep into the left-half of the bell curve. (See story, page A9.)

In response to the comment attributed to him, “[i]f you believe what the global warming people say about greenhouse gases causing this, what you really want to do is bulldoze all the rain forests and plant young trees ? because that is where most of the greenhouse gases come from.” I say: what?

Rohrabacher, you have never taken a science course, have you? Photosynthesis 101: Plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. This is the basis for aerobic life on Earth. Yes, that means you, too. Trees are especially important for carbon sequestration because they store carbon vertically, thereby allowing more carbon storage per acre. When those trees are lost, we lose their ability to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; when we slash and burn forests, we cause a mass release of carbon dioxide.

In addition, during all those “hundreds of millions of years” [you may not be in agreement with President Bush’s 7,000-year estimate], the anthropogenic 5% (your numbers) you mention was not in play. How do you know that the balance is so stable that a “minuscule” 2% to 3% difference is not the tipping point (i.e., the point of no return)?

The people on the left side of the bell curve may be in good political company, but rarely do I see that they possess the foresight to invoke the precautionary principle.

Here is the good news: Being ignorant and being stupid are not the same. Ignorance is a function of laziness driven by ideology. It is a malady that can be overcome by actively, and objectively, studying a subject, rather than relying on Fox News for your science [or any other] facts. Thankfully, there are far more ignorant people than stupid people.

Global warming is a misleading term; global climate change is more accurate. Why? Because some regions will be cooler with more rain and snowfall than in recorded history, and we would not want people like you mischaracterizing an increase in rainfall in the Mojave Desert as prima facie evidence against “global warming.”

JAY B. LITVAK

Costa Mesa