Pierce College Proposal

* I have read the proposal chosen to develop the unused land [at Pierce College] that is under so much scrutiny. I want to know, what is the real problem here?

It certainly is not education and students, because the proposer will contribute $200,000 annually to create new majors, such as culinary arts and golf course management. It is not the Agriculture Department. They have the most to gain--$4 million worth of new buildings and equipment. And it is definitely not the geese, because measures would be taken to assure that this would be a natural habitat.

Enough! This college is foremost an educational institution for students, and it is time to place our interests first.

Take your agendas elsewhere.

DAYNA M. VERRILLO

Pierce College

Student Senator

Calabasas

*

* The golf course proposal at Pierce College is commercial development. The land is zoned for educational use. The plan with a golf clubhouse would not maintain the open space zoning requirement. All development associated with a golf course is not compliant with the zoning laws.

I suggest that there are other educational options for the use of this land that would benefit the students more than a golf course and not involve a commercial development.

The zoning noncompliance of a golf course is a valid issue that has not been addressed and should be.

GARY W. HUMECKE

Winnetka

*

* Leland Shapiro (Letters to the Valley Edition, Feb. 21) states that development of the land would take away precious resources. If the land is not developed, sooner or later Pierce will be forced to close its doors due to lack of funds! And Pierce would loose its most valuable resource, students.

Why is it that Shapiro is more concerned about the land than he is about the majority of the students, who are leaving Pierce for other colleges?

STEVE KRAMER

Northridge

*

* Re “Agriculture and Development,” Letters to the Valley Edition, Feb. 28.

Why doesn’t Business Administration Chairman David Braun mind his own “business.” The idea that he knows what’s best for the Agriculture Department at Pierce College instead of the well-respected, totally capable and long-standing advisors / teachers is like mixing apples and oranges.

James Rikel, who teaches two classes in human anatomy, states that “the humane care of laboratory animals and livestock is the responsibility of the Agriculture Department, not the developer,” and that the developer will design and construct in keeping with the department’s specifications. What he neglected to state was that in exchange for these state-of-the-art facilities for the animals, Pierce is expected to relinquish over 140 acres for a state-of-the-art golf course, complete with a country club and bar.

What do these people not understand about the word “no,” as in “no, we do not want to have our precious land swallowed up by a golf course.”

Land once lost is never found! The organic farm proposal makes much more sense.

CONNIE LJUNGBERG

Woodland Hills