I am sick of reading all the garbage about crossing a street in an unmarked area. Hello, this is called jaywalking — always has been, and it deserves a ticket.
Why do the people in Glendale and Burbank feel we all must bow down and change the laws so they can do whatever pleases them? Give tickets to every one of them, period.
"I am disabled" — what a lame excuse! Take a cab, bus or ride in your family's car. Jaywalking should be enforced for everyone, no excuses.
The motto should be "Do the crime — pay the fine!"
Save our police department time to do bigger jobs than holding your hand while you break the law and patting you on the head.
This had been the law for as far back as I can remember. We should change it now for what reason? Because you don't think it should apply to you?
Who is running this city? And in whose interest. Wake up. Free up our police department; let them catch all the speeders we have in our cities who every day endanger everyone out there, or catch the people using the left-hand turn lane as a "passing lane" to get a jump ahead of the traffic to their right!
Go down Glenoaks Boulevard and watch them. They are bound and determined to kill all of the neighborhood animals and children. When are we going to do something about that — when a child dies?
I say lower the speed limit on Glenoaks to 25 mph for both Glendale and Burbank. Make the fine $100 for every mile over the speed limit, which should send the message and bring some safety back to that street!
Calm down with the propositions Am I the only person in California who feels like I've been "propositioned" to death? I'm not talking about the same proposition a Las Vegas call girl might offer, but the end result still feels the same.
Every election, well-funded special interest groups manage to place several misleading measures on the ballots. They spend millions on advertisements hiring actors to strut their stuff on TV, convincing us that voting for their measure is the right thing for Californians.
The result has been that there are so many poorly created laws on the books handcuffing lawmakers to the point where it's impossible for them to do their jobs.
Does anybody really think that Proposition 16, which is funded by PG&E (the same company that Erin Brockovich made famous for poisoning a rural community) is looking out for our best interest? Even the well-intentioned Proposition 13 has ended up depleting our schools of badly needed revenue.
Is it fair that one person pays four times the amount in property taxes over a neighbor just because they bought their house after 1978?
I'm not saying that all propositions are bad. I'm just saying that using them to fix our government isn't the solution. It's now part of the problem.
After all, when you put the words "proposition" and "politics" in the same sentence, somebody's bound to get cheated.
A clear misread of the Constitution In regards to Joe Zuazua's letter ("This country has an 'illegal' history," May 20), his attempt to spin history in order to justify illegal immigration is typical of a mind set of sympathizers who truly don't understand history or the Constitution.
First of all, the passengers on the Mayflower, contrary to Zuazua's implication, entered this country when it wasn't a country. There were no laws or system of government defining borders or sovereignty. Such a comparison is ludicrous and irrelevant to the current immigration debate.
Secondly, Zuazua has once again proven that those who invoke the constitutionality of an issue they oppose have never bothered to read or study the very document they claim defends their position. To say something is "unconstitutional" implies that the Constitution strictly prohibits such an action. There is no mention of immigration in the Constitution, legal or illegal.
The law regulating immigration is mandated by Congress and has been in effect for 60 years. The fact that it has not been enforced is solely the fault of the federal government. Arizona has simply authorized their law enforcement agencies to enforce the federal law.
Maybe if Zuazua and the Los Angeles City Council actually read the Constitution, they would understand that not only does Arizona have the right to enforce the law, but all other states are required to respect that right. In other words, it is actually Zuazua and those who oppose Arizona's right to enforce the law who are being "unconstitutional."
Thanks for cracking down on drugs I am so grateful that I live in a city where the police department is busting drug users and dealers right and left ("When on drugs, 'the eyes tell all,'" April 29). I am also grateful that the citizens of this community are placing the importance that they do on this serious problem.
Every individual has their opinion as to the "why" of this problem and what the solution to it should be. Most likely I would probably not get much agreement on what I think is the problem or the solution, but I believe I would get some agreement that the wrong thing to do is nothing.
I believe the important thing to keep in mind in our actions is that those who oppose illegal drug dealing and illegal drug abuse have a common purpose (we are dancing to the same drum), and if we just keep doing what we are doing, even though we may not have total agreement with each other, we are doing the right thing: There is power in a common purpose.
Thank you, law enforcement officers, for what you have done and will do. Thank you, citizens of Glendale, for what you have done and will do.
BARBARA JEAN ENCE