Letters to the editor

Elbow room in Los Angeles

Re "Zev tours growth areas in a fury," column, March 19

Thanks for Steve Lopez's wild tour with L.A. County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. In our neighborhood, we're asking the same kinds of questions about development. Will we be at maximum density when we all bump heads picking up our morning paper?

In our case, a developer purchased nearly an entire block of homes and has a large condo project underway. So is that enough density on one block? Apparently not in the eyes of city planners, as they're now considering allowing the same developer to do a similar condo project on our side of the Monopoly board too.

When I asked a city department if the project required a traffic plan, I was told, "Nope, the project's too small." Interesting to note that the developer says he's buying into the area because of its charm. Too bad he's planning to tear it all down.

Keith Johnson

Los Angeles



If only Lopez and Yaroslavsky had driven south to Marina del Rey, they would have found large lessee-developer footprints all over the marina. Heard of mansionization? Now we have yacht- ification, as small-boat slips are reduced by 50% and those that remain have greatly increased fee hikes. A 19-story hotel in a residential neighborhood is projected, as well as an extended-stay hotel on the long-neglected Mothers Beach. The rents in the marina have already zoomed to $2,500 in older buildings; the recently completed new buildings can't find renters. I wonder why.

Residents and boaters have been working against this insanely excessive development for years. The Coastal Commission has listened and ruled accordingly, but the fact that its report is very slow to be published allows the lessee-developers and the supervisors to hurry plans and approvals, swallowing up parking lots, views and boat-slips. A very old local coastal plan has not been amended; a new master plan has not been provided. The process is undemocratic because the Planning Commission and the Small Craft and Harbors Commission are all appointed by the county supervisors.

Lynne Shapiro

Marina del Rey

University faces a test

Re "SAT subject tests may be dropped by UC," March 16

Leave it to a panel from the University of California to make exactly the wrong recommendation by suggesting the university no longer require SAT II tests for applicants. The differences between the SAT I test (generally considered an aptitude test that measures potential) and the SAT II tests (achievement tests that measure what students have learned in particular subjects) are ones of fairness and perception. The advantage to maintaining the SAT II tests, rather than the SAT I, is that the SAT II tests allow students to demonstrate competencies in particular subjects without a sense that judgments are being passed on students' native intelligence. For minority students particularly, evaluations based upon perceived intelligence have negative consequences.

Patrick Mattimore

Gex, France



UC Academic Senate Chairman Michael Brown states that most faculty believe that subject-specific tests, which include history, should no longer be required for admitting freshman because they disqualify people for "no reasons that have to do with achievement." Will it now become too much to hope that by the time these incoming freshman become UC graduates, they will have gained more than the thin and meager sense of history the majority of Americans demonstrate today? With this new drop in standards, UC faculty members have their work cut out for them.

June Maguire

Mission Viejo

Re "The SAT? It tests our credulity," column, March 18

Sandy Banks' column about the SAT subject test contains some misrepresentations. The SAT tests a student's knowledge of a core high school curriculum and critical thinking skills, which are reliable predictors of college success. The only trick to the SAT is studying that curriculum and having an understanding of the exam.

The SAT subject test that Banks completed is offered to students to demonstrate their knowledge of literature recently studied in school. It's no surprise that someone 30 years removed from high school would not perform as well as hoped.

A Princeton Review representative stated that the SAT "tests how well you take the SAT," which is ludicrous. Research shows that the best preparation for the SAT is not a test prep firm offering promises of "gaming" the SAT but completing a rigorous high school course load and being familiar with the test.

Laurence Bunin

General Manager, SAT

The College Board

New York

Development had its supporters

Re "L.A. stops 5,553-unit home plan," March 20

No member of the Los Angeles City Council who voted to stop the 5,553-unit Las Lomas development should dare make a statement lamenting the lack of affordable housing in Los Angeles, where the median price hovers around $500,000. Restricting the supply of homes while the long-term demand from an ever-growing population will continue to rise simply guarantees that prices will remain beyond the reach of those not currently in the market. As this burden falls heaviest on the Latino and African American populations, actions like this are particularly divisive.

Those who encourage this policy madness are generally self-satisfied existing homeowners who can correctly be labeled the "let them eat cake" crowd.

John Husing

Redlands



I commend The Times for writing a balanced article on Las Lomas. Describing a multifaceted project with commercial and retail development, housing and significant infrastructure development is always challenging. I do not believe, however, that Las Lomas pits housing and job creation against quality-of-life issues. For Los Angeles to be a 21st century city, it must have a large, affordable housing stock and good-paying jobs. Any project that provides both deserves a thorough evaluation by the City Council.

Las Lomas would have been a step forward. Rather than debating if the project should be processed by the city, we should be discussing how best to bring jobs, housing and economic opportunity to the northeast San Fernando Valley.

Louis Graziadio

Redondo Beach

Justice as a pretext for war

Re "Protests mark Iraq war's 5th anniversary," March 20

With all the hoopla surrounding the fifth year of an unsuccessful war effort by the Bush administration, the president has stated the removal of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. But look back at Bush's stated reason for invading Iraq: to destroy weapons of mass destruction. The president emphatically stated on more than one occasion before the invasion that this was not about regime change. Well, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, Hussein is dead and we, the American taxpayers, are still paying for Bush's folly in lives, money, anger and political allies.

Bush is a liar, not a decider, and has clearly not learned the lessons of history.

Joseph R. Healey

Fullerton



Lately, I have been reading the works of Voltaire. By coincidence, on the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, I came across his feelings about war: "The greatest of all crimes, at least that which is the most destructive, and consequently the most opposite to the design of nature, is war; but there never was an aggressor who did not gloss over his guilt with the pretext of justice."

Robert C. Lewis

La Mesa



This is not a war. Where is the opposing army? Where is the front? Where are any uniformed enemy soldiers? Call it Bush's legacy, Cheney's folly or Rumsfeld's fiasco, but this is not a war. If we were to invade and occupy any other country with dead-wrong intelligence, the locals would respond the same way many Iraqis have.

Bob Munson

Newbury Park

Strategic grain reserve is needed

Re "Our daily bread? It costs more," March 16

This article documents the effect rising wheat prices have had on bakers. It is important to note that as recently as 2002, wheat farmers were receiving less than $3 per bushel, lower than 1970s prices. These depressed prices drove thousands of family farmers out of business while food processors' and agribusinesses' profits skyrocketed. Just as some bakers have little market power to control the price of wheat, farmers have little control over the price they receive for their commodities.

We agree with the need to create a strategic grain reserve and believe it is urgent to revive farmer-owned reserves, as most civilizations have had, to better protect food processors, farmers and consumers. Leaving our food security to the whims of the global markets is a recipe for disaster. Twenty-dollar wheat is a threat to our food system, but $3 wheat is every bit as unacceptable.

Katherine Ozer

Executive Director

National Family Farm

Coalition, Washington