On cracking down on business signs; UC admission practices; and the law and same-sex marriage

Letter of the law

Re “Sign law is a tough sell,” July 13

Only our virulently anti-business and draconian government would suddenly and selectively crack down on small San Fernando Valley businesses that are merely trying to survive the deep recession, by threatening them uncompromisingly with heavy fines if they don’t remove the signs that have helped them survive.

All because less than a handful of people complained about the signs being too colorful.

No wonder small businesses are fleeing this state for those with more business-friendly governments, and taking their tax revenues with them.

Peter Rich
Los Angeles

Thank you for your article. As a retired sign maker, I strongly feel that the rule that permitted signs may not occupy more than 10% of any window area is archaic and much too constraining.

In these times of monstrous digital billboards and moving electronic displays, an ordinance limiting signs to store name and hours of operation — even requiring the removal of Visa/MasterCard decals — simply does not make sense.

It is time for a change to the window sign provisions.

Harold Kameya
Granada Hills

This ordinance enforcement is a classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Instead of targeting on-site business owners for their signage, wouldn’t the city be better served by the banning of those ridiculous and dangerous “rolling street signs” that are parked every 100 or so yards around the Studio City area? These advertisements for fortune tellers and cheap massage deals block the view of traffic, eat up parking spaces and are annoyingly tacky.

Perhaps it’s more convenient for ordinance enforcers to fine the on-site business owner, who is readily available, rather than tracking down the rolling sign vendors.

Toni Schoenberg
Burbank

Admissions and the UCs

Re “Meritocracy at UC,” Opinion, July 12

A college should be a meritocracy, not a demographic mirror of society. Selections for admission should be based primarily on the academic excellence and personal achievement of the applicants and be made without regard to race, religion or ethnicity.

Race-based affirmative-action policies in the pursuit of diversity and multiculturalism have no place in college admissions. These policies illegally discriminate against white applicants with the same or higher grades and test scores by granting a wholesale preference to all members of a minority racial group.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act was intended to prohibit discrimination against African Americans, but it also prohibits colleges from discriminating against whites and non-preferred minorities.

Stuart Shelby
Santa Monica

A real river can run through it

Re “L.A.’s River clears hurdle,” July 8

Our nearly lost “diamond in the rough,” the L.A. River, had a huge win when the EPA declared it “traditionally navigable waters.” Now Clean Water Act protections apply throughout the river’s watershed, which means our city.

L.A.’s rivers and creeks can all become wonderfully healthy and alive again, to the point of welcoming steelhead trout (canoe commuting, anyone?). However, this can happen only if all our neighborhoods — including yards, streets, schools, parks and parking lots — become functioning watersheds. This means capturing, cleaning and using our rainwater by making hard surfaces permeable, growing climate-appropriate plants and trees, and through the generous use of mulch to hold the runoff in the soil.

Retrofitting urban landscapes is the best and quickest route to ensuring a healthy river and a water-sufficient, climate-safe, economically viable and livable L.A. that can be a shining model for other cities.

Andy Lipkis
Beverly Hills
The writer is the founder and president of Tree-People.

Defining the Catholic Church

Re “Lawyer wants pope to testify,” July 10

The Vatican and the courts need to come up with a coherent way to characterize the Catholic Church in the U.S.

Is it purely a constitutionally-protected religion, in which case its miscreants should be dealt with individually, apart from the Holy See and the church itself?

Or is it a corporation, with the pope as CEO directing the activities of his officer/bishops, making him subject to subpoena — and the church responsible for damages?

Or is it, as papal spokesmen say, “a sovereign entity and immune from the American court system”? In that case, perhaps priests and bishops should be required to register as agents of a foreign government.

It’s clear that a shell game has been pursued by both sides for decades, and the effect is to deny justice to the abused and to protect those who deserve no protection.

Marty Veselich
Playa del Rey

Same-sex marriage law

Re “Same-sex marriage sanity,” Editorial, July 13

The Times opposes bans on same-sex marriage because they are “based on nothing more substantive than a belief in the immorality of homosexuality.”

My word, immorality is not a good enough reason to ban sodomy? If morality is not the bedrock of our laws, then they all rest on shifting sand and we might as well recognize as “normal” adultery, polygamy, prostitution and the like. After all, proponents of these aberrations have as valid a claim to discrimination as do homosexuals.

Rafael Villa
Brea

I commend The Times’ editorial in support of marriage equality and common sense in the Proposition 8 case. As one of the many Californians joyfully wed during the summer before the proposition passed, I am hard-pressed to identify any example of straight marriages failing or birthrates declining due to my wedding, despite dire predictions of the initiative’s proponents. No church is forced to recognize my civil marriage — though increasingly, many choose to.

The voting majority often opposes civil rights of the minority. The Constitution and the judicial branch of our government serve as a needed check against majority tyranny and mob rule. Proposition 8, like the Defense of Marriage Act, is intended to punish gay and lesbian couples for daring to dream of dull domesticity.

Truly, as David Blankenhorn, the star witness for Proposition 8 supporters, has written, “We would be more American the day we allow same-sex marriage.”

Susan Forsburg
San Diego

Please accept my heartfelt gratitude for making such a clear and reasonable argument against Proposition 8.

I am a 67-year-old gay man who has been partnered for the last 11 years, and I would love to think that marriage might be possible in my lifetime. My partner and I deserve to be treated as equals under the law. Hope springs eternal.

William Gammage
Columbus, Ga.

Counting up the warheads

Re “A good START,” Opinion, July 12

What don’t politicians understand about 3,100 nuclear warheads?

We have 50 states. The New START treaty proposes allowing 1,550 missiles each for Russia and the U.S. That is more than 30 missiles per state. These are warheads that make the Hiroshima bomb look tiny.

With these monstrous weapons at our and their fingertips, let us show that we can be more than level-headed. Let us show we can be compassionate as well as intelligent and agree to cut these numbers down. Please!

Tim Ashford
Lomita