Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

Crime report could use a revision

When my L.A. Times is delivered, the first section I read is, of course, the Glendale News-Press — to keep abreast of local issues and local folks in the news.

And one section of personal interest is the police report — not that we have major crime occurring, but it’s a curiosity of mine to be aware of what’s happening in my neighborhood.

Police Chief Ron DePompa and his team have continued to make our community a safer one. His realignment to a four-quadrant community policing type of coverage is one factor which I believe has led to continued low statistics.

So, please, can you change the headings in the report from Areas 1, 2, 3, 4 to corroborate to the command areas of the city? For some people, it might be helpful to know who the area commanders are.


Neighborhood Watch programs are very effective in fighting crime, and this would allow citizens who don’t have a program know who to contact to start one up.

Camille Levee


Editor’s note: Levee is a member of the Community Police Partnership Advisory Committee.


Harsher penalties might curb texting

Though police officers in Glendale are enforcing the law that restricts the use of cell phones while driving, we still witness the extent of text-messaging and talking by phones while driving in Glendale.

I think the law that forbids the use of cell phones while driving is neither stern nor harsh enough to dissuade violators to give up using it. The majority of accidents that occur in Glendale seem to be the consequence of text-messaging or talking by phone. Look at the case of Ani Voskanian, the woman who struck and killed an 80-year-old man with her car, allegedly while texting.

If the Glendale Police Department employs more officers to enforce the law, and lawmakers raised the minimum fine of $159, we could see a significant change in the attitude of violators.

Evic Behzad


Smart meters are an unnecessary cost

I am writing this in direct response to Glenn Steiger’s op-ed (“Making the case for smart meters,” July 10).


1. Steiger states that utilities are installing smart meters. The real truth is very few are. Because of the cost, most utilities have deferred these for a future time, which is what Glendale Water & Power should have done. This project, which includes the water meters, is a $72 million project — $20 million from the federal government and $52 million from bond sales.

2. Steiger mentions that Glendale Water & Power needs these new technologies to provide safe and reliable services to the community. But the utility has always had the necessary technology to serve its customers in a reliable mode. After obligating all of their funds to unnecessary smart meters, they now have less capital to spend in other areas.

3. Glendale Water & Power customers have always known how to reduce our water and electric usage without having a smart meter. You simply reduce your usage and conserve just like you have to with food, gas and other areas. We would have been ahead with a rate reduction instead of fancy meters that we didn’t need.

4. Steiger mentions that there will be no physical harm from these meters, and I must say that I do agree, although neither Steiger nor myself really know. Only the future will tell.

The bottom line is the new smart meters will allow Glendale Water & Power to redesign both the water and electric rates in ways that they can set time of day usage rates — and during water conservation, if you don’t conserve, someone can come knocking at your door and/or you can be penalized monetarily.

Smart meters are simply a luxury that our ratepayers can’t afford, which many other utilities have recognized. It’s time we look back and start operating our utility the way we use to, with good old fashion common sense and real needs.

Larry Moorehouse