Conflict Over Parking Lot

Sometimes it takes an outsider to see a seemingly obvious solution to a problem that is perplexing to the insiders. Regarding “The Parking Lot Versus the Pupils” (May 3), the answer is simple: Do both.

Build a structure that is a parking lot on ground level (perhaps even below ground level, yielding more spaces for customers’ cars).

On the second floor, build a school. The children will have just as much square footage, with some space occupied by buildings and the rest an open playground.

This solution offers a possible side benefit: Perhaps tax moneys generated by the parking lot can help to support the school. This could be a “win-win” situation. Not every problem must be regarded from an adversarial perspective. Cooperation and the willingness to compromise can often benefit everyone. As the Latino members of that community would say, it only takes desire.

ROBIN L. WINSTON, Culver City

*

As a UCLA urban planning school graduate, I am very familiar with the parking lot located near Vermont and Slauson. In class we studied the community’s needs and its long-standing desire for more retail in that area. For your article to frame the debate as economic development versus community development (the establishment of a primary center) is unfair. The community should have both.

With all the money the LAUSD has received from the taxpayers (Prop. BB), it shouldn’t have to lobby the mayor for free city land. LAUSD should acquire property for those 240 children.

As for adding racial overtones, that’s nonsense. The Vermont-Slauson area still has a large segment of school-age African Americans and a growing population of Latino businesses. Councilwoman Rita Walters has shown nothing but leadership in meeting the needs of her constituents, including breaking down cross-cultural borders.

RAUL JOSE FLORES III, Pacoima