LETTERS

Re “The $99 storm-water solution,” Opinion, May 5

Mark Gold comes up with a gold-standard analysis of why storm-water pollution requires our financial support for cleanup.

Those members of our community who succumb to knee-jerk opposition to taxes are sacrificing their reasoning minds to a one-size-fits-all philosophy, which obviously makes them feel good but has nothing to do with reality.

Each case must be considered on its own merits.

Cleaner water, cleaner air: These are pretty basic values our city needs to be supporting.

Maggie Blankley

Los Angeles

::

As a father of a daughter who lives in Venice and uses the beach frequently, I am also concerned about “the public health of swimmers and surfers.”

However, before I pay an additional $76 in storm-water assessment, I would like to know how the $500 million in bond money Los Angeles voters passed five years ago is spent. The city should perform a “forensic,” not a bean-counter, audit of Proposition O by an outside firm.

Nick Patsaouras

Tarzana

::

Gold is right. Sufficient funds for maintenance of Proposition O projects are absolutely critical. Otherwise, to quote Board of Public Works Chair Cynthia Ruiz: “We’re going to be throwing away the taxpayers’ $500 million.”

Residents have repeatedly conveyed the same sentiment to city officials about the large Proposition O storm-water project proposed for Temescal Canyon (near Will Rogers State Beach in Pacific Palisades).

Not surprisingly, the city has not been able to guarantee a source of funds to maintain this huge Proposition O project.

Reducing fecal bacteria levels in the bay is the commendable goal of the project, and we applaud the important work of Gold and Heal the Bay in attempting to rid our ocean waters of pollutants. So far, however, it is debatable whether the Temescal project will actually achieve this.

The city has promised to initiate additional tests to determine, for example, whether elevated bacteria levels in the bay are due to fecal matter in storm water from the Temescal catch basin or, as residents suspect, from multiple broken sewer pipes in the area.

In addition to educating the public on the need for maintenance funds, the city must complete the necessary studies on the efficacy and environmental safety of all proposed Proposition O projects.

Homeowners should not be asked to vote on an increase in their fees without accurate information.

Barbara Kohn

Pacific Palisades

The writer is president of the Pacific Palisades Residents Assn.