Recall Try Was Not Frivolous

I have waited until after the elections to voice my opinion on your March 17 editorial (“The 67th Needs a Fresh Start”) because politics is not my game. Evidently, its not The Times’ either.

But when I read your comment on the Cypress recall being frivolous, it made my blood boil. The press is a very powerful instrument and sways a lot of people with its comments. But the press should have an obligation to investigate the reasons the recall came about.

The blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of the City Council, which on Sept. 26, 1994, in the face of so many objections, voted to allow a warehouse to be built in a area surrounded on three sides by homes. We had over 500 signatures on a petition and over 150 people on hand at that meeting. The council allowed only 22 of us to speak. On the other side, only three people spoke in favor of it (other than Warland Investment Co., which owns the land).

There would have been no recall if they would have continued the decision for two weeks. That would have allowed us the time to investigate all the particulars.

They claim that all homes within a certain radius were notified about this warehouse. The back of my house looks directly at it, and I was never notified. A total of 87 people were to be notified; I found two.

Funny things happened concerning that warehouse, and I for one will not rest until I find what.

A recall is not frivolous. It involves a lot of hard work by people who recognize injustice. The state of California says that you can recall elected officials if they act in a way that is detrimental to you.

DONALD D. WESLING

Cypress