Re: “Activists hire law firm to fight project,” Sun Newspapers, Jan. 26, 2012.
When a group of anonymous individuals hires a law firm as a last ditch effort to impact the development of the DWP property, it should be treated with the dignity it deserves—tossed in the trash.
The members of “Seal Beach for Open Space” need to step forward and identify themselves so that people can make an informed decision as to any potential self-serving interests they may have in stopping the development.
Haven’t the Bay City Partners and the citizens of Seal Beach had enough obstructionism?
Over an extremely extended time period, at great cost to all parties concerned, the Bay City Partners have in good faith met all city and Coastal Commission requirements to responsibly develop their property.
How about allowing them the opportunity to finally move forward and develop the property using the plans already approved by all agencies and the city of Seal Beach. To do otherwise at this point would appear to allow the process to move gracelessly into the realm of an obstructionist vendetta by a small group of dissidents.
Bill Benkovsky and Rich Barbazette
Ever since the public restrooms by the bridge across Marina Drive were removed a couple years ago, people have been leaving their excrement on both sides of the San Gabriel River.
This is not only horribly grotesque, but also very unhealthy—for the river, for us, and for our dogs (some of whom will not only roll in it, but will eat it).
Fisherman are provided a place to fish both on the bridge and on the jetty.
Why do we no longer provide them and others with a place to poop?
My dog has also recently gotten into some human excrement in the bushes behind the tennis courts in Seal Beach, where there also used to be a porta-potty.
The problem of homelessness will not go away due to lack of sanitary facilities, it will just simply become unsanitary.
Can someone suggest a remedy to this unsanitary problem?
GRF in Wonderland
The Golden Rain Board of Directors seems to have joined Alice in Wonderland. At their last meeting, they voted to increase the “membership fees” for new residents.
A couple moving in will now pay $2,808.
That’s an increase of $1,748. Added to this increased cost of buying in Leisure World, the Board obviously giddy with its thirst for money, mandated that potential buyers must now have liquid assets of $100,000.
That is four times the original $25,000 requirement.
Obviously the GRF doesn’t want any poor folks moving into Leisure World.
The current residents can’t continue to pay those excessive salaries, so the GRF needs to get that money elsewhere
The GRF’s money scheme may backfire.
The “baby boomers” are beginning to retire and according to a recent estimate, 54 percent, of the baby boomers have less than $25,000 saved.
So the majority of this large group will not qualify to buy into Leisure World.
Those that would qualify will probably buy a beach house. And as usual the “average guy” will pay for the GRF’s extravagance. It will take longer to sell at a lower price.
Searching for the truth
The Golden Rain Foundation Board left out very important information from the minutes of its Dec. 8 board meeting. Is that legal? Aren’t minutes supposed to be exactly what is stated at the meeting?
I have heard two possible reasons why they are choosing to do this:
- An attorney told them to do it (so are we being governed by an attorney now?) and 2. The Board wants to play a parental role to the shareholders so as not to upset them.
I have a problem with both of these “reasons.” 1. I’m too old for parenting and 2. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
What has happened to transparency and honesty? I thought we were on our way but this is a major blow in the opposite direction. I’m tired of cover-ups and secret meetings. It appears that even the minutes of the Physical Properties Committee meeting on Nov. 2 got changed by leaving out pertinent information they didn’t want the shareholders to know. At the GRF Board meeting on Jan. 19, President Addison Arnold stated if we had questions, we could contact him. I think you can phone or e-mail him or drop a note to the Administration building if you choose. It’s obvious to me we need to let him know how we feel about being so controlled. My question is: Is what they’re doing legal? Ethical? Moral? Transparent? In our best interest?
Seal Beach Leisure World
The opinions expressed in Letters to the Editor are not necessarily those of the Sun. The Sun welcomes Letters to the Editor. Letters should be 300 words maximum. Letters should be e-mailed, signed by the author and include the author’s address and phone number (the latter two are for verification, not publication). The Sun reserves the right to accept, edit, or reject letters for any reason. Unless otherwise indicated, all letters sent to the Sun are understood to be intended for publication.
E-mail letters to: email@example.com. Mail letters to 216 Main St., Seal Beach, CA 90740.