Letters/Online Comments

 Re: Who’s looking out for recreational boaters’ interests? (Aug. 11-24 issue)

 Change is good

Dear Editor:

With all due respect to Captain Larson, there appears to be a misunderstanding as to the facts surrounding the redevelopment of many long term businesses around San Diego Bay.

It was reported (in The Log, by the way) that the previous owner of the Red Sails Inn SOLD his business to the Brigantine Group because they offered him “a price he couldn’t refuse” for his business and lease. So if one wants to assess blame, then point the finger at the owner who made a good and profitable business decision.

Anthony’s was a fixture on the Embarcadero for half a century. They hardly kept the place up over the years, the docks were decrepit, and they closed “The Star of the Sea” room years ago and did nothing with the space. It was sad to watch the once venerable location deteriorate over the years.

The lease with the Port came up for renewal and several restaurant groups bid on the site, including Anthony’s. Should the citizens of San Diego and the Port Authority have made a “deal” with Anthony’s just because they had been there for so long at the expense of a good business decision? Anthony’s had no divine right to the location and bid what they thought was appropriate for the location. Unfortunately they lost to a better bid. That’s business!

Lastly, the owner of Seaport Village, a private real estate development company, wants to renovate the 35+year-old specialty shopping center. The reasons are the same for any real estate developer, namely to increase the value of their property. After almost 40 years, certainly the buildings and retail environment needs updating and the timing was right in terms of financing and the economy. That’s smart business!

These are the same arguments that the foes of gentrification always make. They want to keep property owners from profiting from their investments at the expense of nostalgia for some reason. These new developments will create jobs, increase tax revenue and allow these properties to be more efficient and increase their value. They will also increase tourism, which is mainstay of the San Diego economy. Change is difficult for some but in these cases, they were good business decisions.

Gene E. Schwartz, via email

 

Catch 22

Just like everything else. It’s a catch 22 as well. Owning a 25-foot boat is much more difficult for average people now with slip fees, et al. The problem is at some point you cut off what would feed larger boat sales. Then what? Only luxury yachts?

Chris Tucker

 

Need more yacht friendly slips

I see the opposite actually, smaller slips than larger slips – especially Long Beach area. Not sure why they aren’t more yacht friendly.

Hunter Bryan

 

Re: Channel Islands Harbor awarded the 2017 Trip Advisors Certificate of Excellence (Aug. 11-24 issue)

 Stop building on our harbor

After studying the online submissions, I believe the majority of comments we have heard about our Channel Islands Harbor will absolutely support the point that is made about the community’s feelings on another luxury apartment project on a very busy corner.

We already have enough that will last us for the next 65 years. With this added population and no water, we must keep the best use of the Channel Islands Harbor/Marinas and not rename them as stated on county maps. The Channel Islands Harbor/Marinas (public access areas, not truly owned by Ventura County, but “held in public trust”) are without a doubt, a destination area for new families moving in. The Harbor provides an area full of affordable activities to residents so they can enjoy their town while living comfortably, which is a great incentive to stay here for many years. There is a future for new voters, taxpayers and entrepreneurs right here in Oxnard! This area IS WORLD RENOWN.

You see, as a community we are already intelligently planning our lifestyles in CI Harbor and residential beach areas; this is why we live here. An Urban 4 Story, 390 Unit Enclosed “Lifestyle Complex” (LA style) is just way too large for the Fisherman’s Wharf area. This complex would be placed at an already dangerous intersection and an unreasonable location that has one way in and one way out of Silver Strand/Hollywood By the Sea. It could possibly put thousands of lives at risk in a natural disaster, would make it harder for emergency crews, and also block our local majestic mountain views over the harbor.

The county’s project does not fit the heartbeat of our county and feels wrong for this area, as stated by over *6,250 + residents/visitors (and still counting). This is the beach……sloowww, not rushed. Remember tourism dollars years ago? It kept our local taxes down and we sure need that again. It’s only logical to keep it zoned the way it is, not for residential.

After 20 plus years of perpetual amended paperwork submitted by the county, let’s do something successful, welcomed instead. The voters/public have told the county what we want. The question is: Does the Board of Supervisors (BOS) really want to see this CI Harbor successful? Do they know how to work FOR the people? The BOS asked for feedback, here it is firmly in black and white, with many ideas and signatures from the stakeholder taxpayers.

The great importance of this harbor actually reaches far beyond our area, we receive federal funds for dredging, have a public pier, Cal State CI University and Oxnard College in our harbor, and boaters’ fuel taxes also support this harbor. It is the fifth largest harbor on the west coast and visited by many sailing here to enjoy the Channel Islands.

(County Records: BOS Public Comments at June 14, 2016 Public County Meeting)

Dotty Pringle, via email

 

Re: Dana Point Navy Sighting Report: A Brief Recap (Aug. 11-24 issue)

 How did Harbor Patrol not know?

Strange that the Harbor Patrol didn’t know about the boats, but the photo shows a red Sheriffs boat in the background.

Jack

 

Re: California resolves to protect national marine sanctuaries (Aug. 11-24 issue)

Politics vs. Environment

Not quite sure about this one. Almost sounds like an political matter, disguised as a purely environmental issue, then it was a direct attack not a claimed counter attack. BTW, I’d prefer the status of our marine sanctuaries be left alone.

Brian Aherne

 

Selling of Santa Rosa was thievery

They STOLE Santa Rosa from the Vails by intimidation. Either sell or we will take it was the offer. I say Trump should return it to them, as they were great stewards of the island. From 2011: history soon took a turn that would spell the end for the deer and elk. Fearing condemnation, Vail & Vickers sold Santa Rosa Island to the government for $30 million in 1986. At the time, the Vails knew they couldn’t go on for long raising 2 million pounds of beef a year in a spot widely likened to the Galapagos, but they understood that they could keep ranching for 25 years, until 2011. It didn’t work out that way. Family members say government restrictions, after the sale, forced them to quit 13 years earlier than they’d planned. A 1997 lawsuit by the National Park and Conservation Association hastened the end of both ranching and hunting. The group alleged that the game animals — as well as the cattle — were degrading the environment. Under a settlement, they were to be removed over a four-year period ending this Dec. 31. Family members still hold ranching close. Tim Vail is an equine veterinarian. Woolley raises grass-fed beef in San Luis Obispo County. Nita Vail runs the California Rangeland Trust, a group that helps property owners preserve working ranches.

Leroy Achoy

Share This:

Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *