Mailbag: City must contain ‘drunken terrorism’ associated with fireworks

This letter is apparently going to become an annual tradition for me since it is clear that the city and the Huntington Beach Police Department have no intention of enforcing the laws of the city on the Fourth of July.

I understand that the “safe and sane” fireworks were legalized commencing with this year, and while I disagree with that policy given the fire danger in our extreme drought conditions, that is not my complaint.

Last year I wrote to complain that in the days leading up to the Fourth, and particularly on the Fourth, it felt as though we were living in a war zone. The HBPD on its Facebook page complained of being overwhelmed by calls.

The people down the street from us sent fireworks party invitations, knowing full well that in 2014 they weren’t legal. I called HBPD at least three times, and there was never a police presence on the street.

This year, the HBPD asked on its Facebook page that we not call simply because we heard illegal fireworks, but only if we saw them and could provide an address. Apparently the responsibility for investigating crimes in progress now falls to the residents.

I called twice, having seen evidence and with addresses. Still no appearance by the HBPD. There were aerial displays visible all around our neighborhood and the constant booming of M80s. What was not visible was the HBPD.

The same neighbors with the illegal fireworks party in 2014 continued the tradition this year. They may well have had some legal fireworks. But they also had rockets and M80s. They kept it up until 1 a.m.

We overheard them discussing where to “target” the rockets. This morning, our neighborhood was littered with fireworks debris and beer cans. This was not a display of patriotism. It felt more like drunken terrorism.

This could not have come as a surprise to law enforcement. It is not reasonable to complain of being overwhelmed, given the many months that were available to plan for the trouble. The city and the HBPD have obviously opted to tolerate the lawlessness. Apparently I live in a city where laws are selectively enforced.

Claudia Berglund

Huntington Beach

*

A simple way to save water in H.B.

Our city is draining off thousands of gallons of water a day from Huntington Lake. Water drains from the pipe just east of the Kathy Mays restaurant.

It runs under the adjacent housing track, where it is eventually pumped to the Wintersburg Channel, then into the ocean. There is a cap on the pipe that is usually closed every spring.

We get a majority of our water from the aquifer beneath our city. Only prudent to close the cap, let the lake fill, and we can recharge our aquifer later in the summer. A recent Los Angeles Times article pointed that Los Angeles is doing exactly this.

I have emailed council members, other city departments and called the “HB Water Conservation Hotline” and discussed this with people. All to no avail.

Hard to understand with all the hoopla over our Huntington Beach declaring “A Level 2 water supply shortage.”

This needs to be fixed now.

Gary Droeger

Huntington Beach

*

Rent control ignores demand-supply realities

In the June 11 edition of this paper, Mr. Eugene Suh has much to say about the need for all of Orange County to implement rent controls on rental property and apartments, especially his, which was increased by 9% per month.

He never mentions that his rent of $1,545 a month may be in an area where similar rents are $2,000 a month, or the fact that he may be on a month-to-month rental, and not on a lease.

Mr. Suh also states that rents in Santa Monica and San Francisco “have exorbitant rents of $2,328 and $3,460 for a one-bedroom.”

He then continues to quote that the U.S. Census Bureau per capita income in California is $29,528, intimating that at such an income a rent of $2,328 a month would leave a family destitute. The reasonable answer to his illogical ramblings would then be to find a place that rents for what is affordable ($886 a month, using a 30% of income housing average).

Mr. Suh seems to be suffering from a lack of knowledge of our supply-and-demand principals (a basic factor of the U.S. capitalistic economic system) that plainly state you get what you can pay for.

A person can buy a new car for $16,000 or $500,000. Both have four wheels, and both offer transportation from Point A to Point B. A person with income of $29,528 would certainly like to own a $500,000 vehicle, but would likely settle for the less-expensive version.

Why is it different for having a house or apartment? I would certainly like to live in Beverly Hills, or in an apartment in Santa Monica with an ocean view, but I simply can’t afford it!

My answer to Mr. Suh’s article does not involve changing the tried-and-true system of the law of supply and demand simply to suit him and others in his predicament, or trying to increase the reach of the poisonous claws of the socialistic nanny state we find ourselves in, but simply for him and others to live where they can afford the rent or the house payment — or the payment of car they own or the clothes they wear.

Lest we forget a few short years ago the crash of the housing and banking economy simply because people wanted to live in houses they couldn’t afford?

The other alternative, which always has been a positive incentive in this country, is for people to earn more money to afford the lifestyle they want. To put it another way, if people couldn’t afford the rent for such an apartment it would sit empty, and if all such apartments sat empty and $500,000 cars sat unsold, owners, and builders of such would revise their prices and tax collectors would necessarily revise their expectations of income as well — giving the government less and less income for the community good.

Joseph Caro

Huntington Beach