MAILBAG

It’s not just a ‘happy sparkle season’

Christmastime is a religious and cultural tradition for most Americans.

But somehow the words Merry Christmas have been replaced with less offensive phrases such as “happy holidays,” and “happy sparkle season.” I’m sure most people would rather have a Merry Christmas than a meaningless “sparkle season.” I can’t imagine why reasonable public officials would cave to the hostility from those who oppose the celebration of Christmas.

Frankly, I find it unbelievable that we as a society are even debating whether saying Merry Christmas is OK. As Christmas approaches, I anticipate buying gifts, preparing food and planning celebrations with family and friends. Christmas is a time for goodness, giving and hope — not fear, intimidation and disinformation. I would like to remind elected officials that 96% of their constituents celebrate Christmas, according to a recent Gallup poll, and we have the right to do so both in private and in public. The courts have never ruled that you can’t say Merry Christmas, or sing Christmas carols, or hand out candy canes in public places. The Alliance Defense Fund, for example, has a website where all of these things are fully explained by legal experts (www.saychristmas.org). Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, and most importantly, have a very Merry Christmas.

DONALD COX

Burbank

Cap, not market, is what is needed

I have lived in my home in the Rancho area for the past 15 years. The last thing we need is another big grocery store, especially right across the street from Pavilions (“Market raises concerns,” Nov. 29.)

The Whole Foods project is entirely too large (bigger than Pavilions) for that small parcel of property, and I can’t even imagine the traffic nightmare that will ensue if the project, as presented, is approved. It is time to put a cap on growth in Burbank or our city will end up like Glendale — congested and overbuilt.

NOREEN REARDON

Burbank

Popular opinion is what democracy is

According to the Dec. 9-10 Burbank Leader front-page story, “Council tests the no-smoking waters,” regarding an outdoor-smoking restriction, Burbank resident Gail Romero told the Council on Dec. 5, “[you can] make a reasonable and sensible judgment, or … do what the Calabasas council members did and vote for a ban just because it was popular.”

Webster’s 10th edition Collegiate Dictionary defines “popular” as “1: of or relating to the general public” and “2: suitable to the majority.” I thought that’s how we made decisions in this country, by what the majority wants. We just overturned control of two houses of Congress on that basis. That’s called democracy. Voting for what is popular is the very foundation of America. I’m amazed that Romero would think that was an objection.

I don’t want to cough, or get chest pains, or headaches, or sinusitis, or again get cancer by inhaling a “toxic [poisonous] air contaminant” — whether indoors or outdoors — so I’ll have to admit, I’m fanatical about my health.

I am fortunate I was able to kick the tobacco addiction, but if I were still smoking, I don’t think I’d want Romero out there speaking for me.

ROBERT PHIPPS

Burbank

Safety hazards go beyond just smoke

From Debra Gilmore’s letter, “Not smoking doesn’t make you popular” (Dec. 14), I get the impression she doesn’t understand the real issue.

The issue is not smoking; the issue is blowing smoke.

Certain members of Burbank city government are using this issue as a smokescreen.

If these members of city government were truly concerned about our safety, they would stop wasting time and rhetoric on something that may or may not kill someone in 30 years and concentrate on something that could kill someone today.

Gilmore mentions several local businesses: Starbucks, the Coffee Bean and the theaters.

All of these are located in the Village area, which has essentially become a lawless zone.

Personally, I would suggest she be less concerned with second-hand smoke and more concerned with the fact that she takes her life in her hands every time she crosses an intersection in that area.

Motorists are constantly speeding through lights and making turns in front of pedestrians, often coming within inches of hitting someone.

If she drives to the area she’ll also have to be less focused on those evil smokers and more focused on pedestrian scofflaws jumping into the intersection against red lights, pausing just long enough to give attitude looks to the motorists who are forced to come to sudden stops.

And, if she parks at Town Center, smoking will be the least of her worries. On a typical day, it’s common to see cars going 20 and 30 mph in the parking structure. That bothers me a lot more than an occasional cigarette destroying the nice ambience of carbon-monoxide fumes.

These traffic conditions are the direct result of an inept signal synchronization pattern that has frustrated and angered motorists and pedestrians for years. The danger level increases on a daily basis, and if something isn’t done soon, fatalities are inevitable.

This is why many of us keep harping on signal synchronization like broken records — it is the single most important issue in the city of Burbank.

And any member of local government who throws out controversial suggestions for the express purpose of drawing attention away from the reality that they are, in fact, doing nothing while our roads are in a state of anarchy needs to be smoked out.

JOHN S. SOET

Burbank