Readers React: The suburban Centennial development is a fire tragedy waiting to happen

To the editor: There are many reasons why the proposed Centennial suburban development on the privately owned Tejon Ranch property in northeast L.A. county should be rejected.

Some of the recent devastating fires in California took place in areas where housing was built close to wild lands; those tragedies should serve as a red-flag warning. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection designates the Centennial area a “fire hazard severity zone” because the site is grassland with frequent high winds and high heat.

Putting thousands of new homes in this area is just asking for another tragedy. Building these houses, apartments and office parks far from public transit and near protected wild lands in a high-propensity fire zone makes no sense as a solution to our housing crisis.

Rosalie Preston, Gardena

..

To the editor: The Centennial project must go forward if for no other reason than it represents the right way for a large private land owner to behave.

By setting aside 90%, or 240,000 acres, in a permanent preserve, Tejon Ranch became the poster child for responsible private land stewardship and habitat conservation. Outfits like Audubon California and the Sierra Club long ago bought into this plan and formally signed an agreement to that effect.

Smaller organizations that still oppose Centennial have never supported any project like this in their history, often taking the view instead that all development on any open land anywhere is bad. I’m guessing that not too many homeless or working poor people are among their members.

Mike Post, Winnetka

..

To the editor: Like Temecula, 60 miles north of San Diego, the Centennial development will offer new homes at lower prices in exchange for a 70-mile drive to jobs in Los Angeles in cars belching carbon dioxide.

It seems that no one can or wants to connect the dots on activities leading to major climate change. Consumption, money and just having fun are driving our demise.

Roger Newell, San Diego

..

To the editor: Many people simply do not like to live in very dense cities. Walking, although healthy, is avoided by most people.

In yesteryear, high-density cities were required because people had to be nearby. But that was yesterday. There is no logical reason for a high-density city in today’s world.

High rise buildings are the most expensive way to house people and jobs, and they exacerbate the difficulty of providing low-cost housing.

There is no indication people like to live elbow to elbow. The norm for centuries has been separate domiciles. Our California style of suburban living made it possible. It need not be abandoned. Self-driving electric vehicles will solve the transportation problem, as they can move nose-on-tail with computer control.

Yes, the weather is not so pleasant in a place like Centennial, but people and employers adapt. A beehive-like existence where one’s buzz interferes with another’s is not required.

Richard Rigney, Long Beach

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook