Proposals for Pierce College

I am a professor of International Trade in the Business Administration Department at Pierce College and a member of the task force that analyzed the proposals for the empty land. It is absolutely embarrassing that an institution of higher education and all the factions of its community continue to spend a tremendous amount of energy on irrelevant and even silly arguments. There is only one perspective: the future; the future careers of young people of every ethnic group and every type of background, the future livelihood of those returning to upgrade skills that relentless change has made obsolete, the future of a work force that must now compete, not in a golden rural era that never existed but in a global economy where national boundaries have become meaningless.

And we are arguing about whether to upgrade our infrastructure and create a powerful resource of knowledge for all members of the Pierce family versus keeping a wasteland as a hobby and a playground for the few? Pierce is a college, not a backyard. Shame on us!

Local politicians, news media, parents of current and future college students, faculty, businesses and all sensible community members: Let us all keep the true perspective and support the development of the empty land at Pierce. And let’s move forward.

BERT SANCHEZ, Professor of International Trade, Business Administration Department, Pierce College, Woodland Hills

*

Solomon Moore’s March 11 article, “College Trustees Hear Pros, Cons of Pierce Golf Proposal” provided hopefully important information that two other rival proposals for golf facilities exist and may have an opportunity to compete via bidding. Avoidance of the apparent single source selection by elective political community college district board members gives hope to the community’s interested golfers. On this point, Moore omitted quoting my first question to business professor and Pierce advisory committee member David Braun.

My question (No. 1) was whether the golf facility would be operated as a public course or a country club. When he responded only that it would be a championship course, I added that such facilities are for professional golfers, not typical community citizen players for whom $100 greens fees would be excessive. As Moore reported, the Pierce advisory committee member claimed to be uninformed on cost to the public.

That’s what “pulled the plug.”

ED NORTON, Tarzana