Long Beach Press-Telegram
Letters to the Editor
 

Published: Wednesday, August 14, 2002
 

Carmel shines

Accolades to travel editor Eric Noland for listing all the environmentally friendly ways Carmel manages to attract 1.5 million tourists a year ("The comforts of Carmel," Aug. 11).

He states: "To begin with, nature is welcomed, accommodated and nurtured rather than subjugated." What a concept! A city forester on the payroll, walkways that bend around the trees, no curbs or sidewalks in residential areas, and best of all, no one can trim a tree without City Hall permission. If Long Beach copied these ideas, maybe the predicted millions would visit here each year.

However, all is not perfect in paradise: Noland noted that Carmel has one of the few California beaches allowing off-leash dogs. He also notes there isn't a shore bird for miles. This is another reason, in addition to health concerns, why I oppose dogs on the beach in Belmont Shore. Long Beach is already becoming a city with the reputation of "going to the dogs" - please, no additional pollution of our beach.

Ann Cantrell
Long Beach

 

Ethics

Re: Press-Telegram's editorial, "Setting an ethical tone," Aug. 9).

"Ethics Review Task Force" and "ethics manual" are contradictions of terms. Ethics are "internalized" values. Have elected Long Beach officials agreed to delegate the role of conscience?

This "ethics" committee is comprised of peers of those it is charged to regulate and is further compromised by monetary compensation. How is enforcement of ethics to be handled?

I also doubt sufficient protection against malfeasance can be guaranteed by asking candidates to report the sources and amounts of campaign contributions. If the ethics manual isn't handy, someone might forget.

If Dan Baker's campaign staff must give depositions to determine the legitimacy of their actions, then the winning candidate's staff certainly should! Several citizens of Long Beach were quoted in the Press-Telegram claiming that they were coached how to write "Beverly O'Neill" on the ballot.

This ethics review has all the appearance of yet another corporate firewall against scrutiny.

Diane Rush
Anaheim