Playing the name game

Editor:

(Re: “By any other name,” page 1, Jan. 24)

Moomat Ahiko?

I missed the turn to the PCH twice and made two illegal U-turns because the infamous PCH sign was dwarfed by this name, bold in blue and yellow.

Good going, Santa Monica ... Don’t get me started.

Joe Nicoletti
Santa Monica



Turn around fluoride tide

Editor:

(Re: “Not all smiles for fluoride treatment,” page 3, Jan. 19)

At a time when fluoride environmental concerns are center stage in our awakening as a human race, the choice to intentionally add a toxic industrial waste product to our Santa Monica water supply is unconscionable.

This misguided decision was truly not representative of the majority and will set the stage for health conditions far worse than fluorosis. The package is wrapped in “free installation,” but within lurks “perpetual economic burden” for Santa Monicans in years to come. I say reverse the decision.

Marissa Rubin
Santa Monica



Compromise is the key

Editor:

A few things occurred to me upon reading the article about preferential parking (“Parking headaches,” page 3, Jan. 22).

First, the ocean and our beaches are not private property. Everyone should have access to enjoy them. For many people driving in from farther inland, going to the beach in Santa Monica is an exciting outing. Visitor access is not restricted according to the size of one’s income. Renting by the beach is quite expensive, but residents don’t own the beach. For many, the parking lot fees are too steep to pay, and what is left is street parking or perhaps taking a bus. Why should only a select few be allowed to enjoy our natural treasures?

Second, the street is a public, not private space. While I agree that it would be ideal to park where you live, the street is not owned by the landowners or their tenants. I don’t think that it is appropriate to bar anyone from parking simply because they are not a landowner or tenant of a landowner.

Third, there are a lot of people who even live in the area, yet still don’t have cars. How do they get around, do their shopping, etc.? I am personally somewhat addicted to my car. Cars can do very useful things, admittedly, but ownership of a car should not be equated with entitlement to use a public space for private convenience. Surely, we can be more creative and resourceful.

I’m sure that there are other solutions to the problems, many involving alternative forms of transportation, car-sharing, or perhaps making public parking lots more accessible to Farmers’ Market attendees and beachgoers. Can we find a solution that more ably considers the rights and interests of the general public, who also have important interests in the area?

Christine Behnen
Venice