Letters to the editor

Smoking room

Re “Long Beach may ease indoor smoking ban,” Feb. 3

It seems reasonable to exclude hookah bars and cigar shops from the indoor smoking ban. Having specific places for people to smoke does not infringe on the rights of others.

The people who choose to go to these places know the consequences of being around smoke. They are harming themselves, not others. So why should owners suffer the possible loss of their businesses, especially during tough economic times?

Taylor Harris

Coto de Caza

Digging into the bailout

Re “The bucks stop here,” editorial, Feb. 5

As a taxpayer, retired entrepreneur and business consultant, I strongly endorse President Obama’s move to tie bailed-out corporations’ executive compensation to shareholder value, and to make bonuses and retirement benefits contingent on repayment of bailout loans and interest. Reassuringly, it appears some bankers seem to be redirecting their efforts already.

But how does the president propose similarly to focus federal and state government officials on effective use of the billions of dollars they are seeking?

Would it be constitutional to bar them from standing for reelection -- or even holding any public office after serving their current terms? More realistically, could their retirement benefits be made contingent on loan repayment? There must be some way to hold them accountable.

Gib Hoxie

Palos Verdes Estates

::

Nothing like getting one’s blood boiling first thing in the morning -- your editorial did the trick.

You suggest that capping executive salaries might exacerbate our current financial crises by “driving away talented leaders”?

Are you nuts?

Do you mean talented leaders like the late Kenneth Lay of Enron fame? Or Jacques Nasser, the CEO who presided over a 75% stock loss during his tenure at Ford? Or possibly Stanley O’Neal, the CEO whose innovative business savvy led to an $8-billion write-down at Merrill Lynch?

Which of these Wall Street stalwarts are you referring to exactly? Seems like driving away these guys might be the best thing that ever happened to Wall Street.

Frederic E. Bloomquist

San Pedro

Defending AB 103

Re “AB 103: The wrong right,” editorial, Feb. 3

I believe The Times’ editorial misconstrues the intent of AB 103. This is a simple matter of tax equity that carries out the basic premise of Proposition 13 -- to prevent unexpected increases in property taxes for owners who choose to stay in their homes.

AB 103 is narrowly crafted. The exclusion is limited to two people who own a home for a minimum of one year as their principal place of residence, and only applies if one of the co-owners passes away and full ownership is granted to the survivor via trust or will. These criteria are not arbitrary; rather, they ensure fairness in the application of property reassessment.

Whether by choice or because of the law, some individuals cannot or choose not to marry or enter into a domestic partnership, and I do not believe it is fair to discriminate against them.

AB 103 is a small but significant step to protect these individuals from the possibility of losing their homes after the death of their loved ones.

Kevin de Leon

Sacramento

The writer, a Democratic Assembly member from Los Angeles, is the sponsor of AB 103.

::

The editorial mistakes the problems AB 103 addresses. You correctly state that same-sex couples registered as domestic partners in California avoid property-tax increases after the death of one partner. However, you imply that the “indignity” of domestic partnership is the sole reason couples do not register. In reality, there are more tangible factors involved.

One is the difference between state and federal legal protections for same-sex couples. For example, domestic partners file a joint state income tax return. But the federal government doesn’t recognize these relationships and requires partners to file separately with the IRS.

Another reason couples do not register is concern for personal safety. Because domestic-partner records are centralized with the secretary of state, anyone can request a list of all registrants. Same-sex partners, some of whom have faced years of discrimination, are forced to publicly declare their sexuality in order to gain their rights.

Same-sex surviving partners should not suffer from the inequalities of relationship recognition in California. Alice Kessler

Sacramento

Death in Mexico

Re “Mexico’s death trap,” editorial, Feb. 5

The Times argues that Mexico should not reinstate the death penalty. I agree.

Executions have taken the place of an official death penalty policy in Mexico.

This quickly failing state can’t afford the creation of a death row in its prison system, with the endless appeals and high per-prisoner costs of detention that taxpayers are subjected to in the U.S.

Better to spend the funds on public education and polygraph machines for each and every member of the government, police and military.

Tara Murphy

Washington

::

The Times’ editors still refuse to comment on why they believe murderers deserve to go on living, or to propose reasonably simple solutions to the systems that they feel are “uneven and manifestly unfair” in applying the death penalty.

But bringing Mexico into the picture does present a just solution: Spending the rest of one’s life in a Mexican prison could be worse than death.

Mel Wolf

Burbank

The right road

Re “A win for wilderness,” editorial, Feb. 4

The Times unfairly called one provision of the omnibus public lands bill, allowing a road to be built through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, “troubling.” In fact, this would be a win-win for all concerned.

This road would be a lifesaving link for the mostly indigenous residents of the area facing medical emergencies. The federal government would receive 61,000 acres of pristine habitat in exchange for a small right-of-way road that would take up 206 acres.

The Aleutians East Borough is incurring an annual deficit of $1 million from operating its hovercraft for medical emergencies, and cannot afford to sustain this long term. Furthermore, the hovercraft cannot operate during severe weather.

Laura Tanis

Anchorage

Judicial restraints

Re “Too easy to amend,” Opinion, Feb. 4

The authors’ point, that it should be harder for voters to amend the California Constitution, has merit -- as long as we also make it harder for judges to “amend” the Constitution too.

Essentially, that’s what happened last May, when four justices decided that same-sex marriage suddenly became a basic constitutional right.

Even those who agree with that decision should understand that it should not be easy for judges to change the meaning of the Constitution. Why? Because the composition of the state Supreme Court will change. What happens when there are four or five justices whose worldview is the opposite of yours?

Adam Beneschan

Mission Viejo

You too, unions

Re “Million paid in alleged police assault,” Feb. 3

Cities statewide continue to pay millions to alleged and court-determined victims of malfeasance by their employees. In this case, the amount lost by the city of Hawthorne is $1 million. That is money and time that would be better spent improving public services to the city’s residents.

Employee unions should be held monetarily responsible, at least partially, for the problems caused by their members. Until the union is involved, the financial carnage will continue unabated.

Jerry Andersen

Pacific Palisades