Landfill Conclusions

This letter is in response to an editorial written by Leonard Bernstein for The Times (“Planners’ Rejection of N. County Landfill Sites Is Far Too Hasty,” Sept. 9). I take exception to his use of the word “hasty” in both the title of the article and in the body of his remarks. This term is misleading. Mr. Bernstein insisted in a phone conversation that the term was intended to suggest that to throw out these sights without further study is “hasty.”

He concludes that so much money and time have already been spent on consideration of these sites that not to continue the process with more time and more money is “hasty.”

When I read the article, I took his “hasty” to mean that the county Planning Commission findings were hasty. After all, he calls its decision a “hasty rejection.” Never mind that they heard three long days of testimony on the sites and read countless reports including the environmental impact report from the county staff which Mr. Bernstein admits to never having seen. He draws his conclusions from the staff and “some interviews.”

Fortunately, the planners were more thorough than he was. The staff has a vested interest in seeing their work come to fruition. Of course they would see the planners’ decision as “hasty.”

Unfortunately, most readers will accept Bernstein’s conclusions without knowing where he got his facts. Sadly, these are the same people whose water will be tainted for future generations because so much time and money has already been spent. It would be a waste not to go ahead with what the staff recommends.

ANN F. BURTON

Fallbrook