Other Coast Sites Are Worth Saving

* Re “Our Priceless Coastal Hills,” editorial, March 16:

Your analysis of the California Coastal Commission’s defense of the very important Marblehead ecological system was right on. As you stated, “Cities . . . with beautiful coastlines should reconsider the price of getting what they need . . . rather than having their coastal canyons filled in and lost for future generations.”

Marblehead is indeed precious to all of those who went to San Diego to defend it before the commission. However, The Times need look no further than the intersection of Jefferson and Lincoln boulevards, the heart of the Ballona Wetlands ecosystem, to find such an area of precious value in Los Angeles.

The bluffs above Ballona are threatened with being filled in for a new road, and as I write, protesters (https://www.savewestbluffs.org) picket what they see as the illegal bulldozing of the wetlands on Ballona. This is a prime example of trading the profit of the few for the open space needed by animals, plants and our future generations.

Thanks again for your great editorial. Looking forward to your coverage of Ballona too.

DOUG KORTHOF

Seal Beach

* Re “Goodbye, Marblehead; Goodbye, Tax Dollars,” March 14:

Your editorial describes how, in the face of Coastal Commission resistance, the developer withdrew plans to build homes and a retail center on our majestic coastal bluff and jeopardized a host of city projects due to the loss of tax base. At first glance, it would appear that my city faces hard choices between garish development involving destruction of the environment versus severe cutbacks in city services. But your editorial was also good enough to point out that we had another choice four years ago and blew it.

When a successful statewide initiative blocked the ability of the city to receive revenue through special assessment districts, the city tried to compensate by seeking a 2.5% utility tax that would have only partially replaced the assessments that we had been paying. And if memory serves me, there was even a sunset clause that would have eliminated the tax unless it was again approved by voters. But the residents of my city were too cheap to pay the price of a civilized society and rejected the tax, resulting in the city eliminating 55% of city staff and cutting many programs.

Now we are getting what we deserve. Since we were not willing to pay our fair and reasonable share to support our quality of life and ensure that our city remains an attractive place to live, the City Council has been forced into bed with developers in order to increase the tax base.

Can we learn from our mistakes? I voted for the taxes the first time around and would do so again as an alternative to the sort of development proposed for Marblehead. You just can’t get something for nothing, and I would hope my fellow residents will have finally learned that lesson.

BILL McINTYRE

San Clemente