That not-in-my-backyard-mentality

Violence Against Animals

This is a horrible image that you put on the cover of the May 19 issue, a picture of a shark that was slaughtered to death. The people in the picture are somewhat smiling, and they are proud of it.

I don’t think “Sharks Rampage in La Jolla” actually tells the story. This is worse than your previous covers. This is awful.

I like the ones that don’t show acts of violence against animals, because they are all created from God. I hope you guys believe in karma.

• Name withheld
• via voicemail

They’d Rather Devalue Properties

I appreciate the Reader’s attention to the Francis Parker debacle. It only scratched the surface off Parker’s shameless tactics in their attempt to offload their morning and afternoon traffic mess onto the residents of North Rim Court.

Parker only alerted a few residents near the 7-Eleven about their plans in violation of city code; hid their North Rim driveway plans, and increased height and wattage of their towering lights; lied about the number of events taking place and their noise levels; how their people would be parking on North Rim; and cars leaving events as late as midnight with their lights shining directly onto residents’ windows.

Many of their athletic events feature bands playing amplified music. Instead of solving their problem with a staggered child drop-off and pick-up plan, they would rather devalue the properties on North Rim Court, and pile on more lights, noise, and traffic.

For fiscal year ending June 2014, Parker made $38 million in annual sales and reported $110 million in assets. Can the Reader please find out to whom Parker is contributing on city council, so we know how the vote will go down?

• Alfred Hilderbrand
• Linda Vista

NIMBY Mentality

Re: “Francis Parker vs. Neighbors...Again,” City Lights

I had to get some crackers to go along with all the whining in that story. I know the area well and after reading the article and Google mapping the area (street view included), I have no idea what the residents are complaining about, other than unproven beliefs and predictions related to an increase in traffic.

A traffic increase is inevitable, but they make it sound as though the entire campus of SDSU will be using the new entrance. Based on the numbers provided and extra lanes added, the increase in traffic will be minimal. Of course, this is only an opinion.

However, as stated in the article, there will be an increase of only 140 students. Landis makes her comments based on an assumption that every student will be driven individually to and from school and that they will all use the new entrance. She apparently lives in a fantasy land where public transportation, carpooling, or any other form of transportation is nonexistent.

Legitimate questions, statistics, or incomprehensible industry jargon? “Can you tell me how you feel morally about creating a convenience for yourself that will cause so much harm to your neighbors and has generated such ill will?” That’s a legitimate question? If she was honest and objective in her line of questioning, she’d get responded to. If she or others do not understand the statistics and industry jargon, I suggest a small bit of studying.

Eighteen parking spots on a public street will be lost? Based on the Google map street view, I don’t see how this is possible (if the entrance is to be directly across from the 7-Eleven, as stated in the article. As it stands now, it’s a red zone from the corner to the area across from 7-Eleven.

Even if the spaces were lost, it’s not the schools fault that residents knowingly moved into a community with limited/inadequate parking. It also appears as though Ms. Landis needs to learn the difference between a nighttime event and sports practice.

Those opposing the new entrance will never be happy, no matter what alternatives are offered. Where should the traffic cord have been placed, if not directly after the 7-Eleven entrance? The claims of not counting at the right times, improper cord placement, etc. only goes to prove they have a “not in my backyard” mentality. Sad.

• Chris Backe
• University City

Everybody in San Diego Can Hear It

I read the article about the Parker school wanting to expand, and how inconvenient it is for the neighbors. I just wanted to mention that they should live where we live. We live in condos overlooking Clairmont High School. It’s maybe 100 yards away from us.

When we bought the condo, it was very quiet. About five or six years ago the school decided on a $7.5 million renovation to their sports facilities, and wound up with a baseball field, two softball fields, a soccer field, a football field and track. There’s never a time when there isn’t something going on down there. There’s always games being played — not only Clairemont teams; they rent the facilities out to everybody else in San Diego who wants to use them.

Sometimes there are soccer tournaments there until 11:00 at night. With the addition of the huge lights they have on the football field that they use until 11, 12 o’clock at night sometimes, they shine right into the neighbors’ windows. Discussions with the principal got nothing but a shrug. So, we have to put up with it.

When there are games played, they have loudspeakers that are blasting so that everybody in San Diego can hear it. Living here has gone from a peaceful place to a living hell with the renovation of the Clairemont school facilities.

During the two and a half years of construction, those of us living here had dirt blowing in our condos all the time. We had construction noises, heavy equipment, beep, beep, beep, beep, every time they backed up. We had flatbeds delivering heavy equipment at 3:00 in the morning in the schoolyard, dropping ramps. This went on for two and a half years.

So, to the lady who doesn’t like the Parker school, I’m sad for her. But I think the people in our condos would be happy to trade with her any day of the week.

• Ron
• Clairemont