Gregory Canyon dump not needed
It is important for the U-T’s readership to hear both sides of the Gregory Canyon landfill debate, so I would like to correct several inaccuracies in the poorly researched editorial “Talking trash” (Feb. 24).
For years, landfills have been built to the highest standard then available; however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has still concluded that every landfill liner eventually leaks. The Gregory Canyon dump would perch millions of tons of trash immediately adjacent to the San Luis Rey River and directly on top of an aquifer in a seismically active area. Leakage, landslides or collapse are inevitable. There is no reason to risk contamination of our drinking water when alternatives exist.
This is not about North County trash being shipped out of the county. In fact, Gregory Canyon has already sought trash from outside the county to make money for its out-of-state developers. There is no basis for reduced trash fees or the $50 million in estimated fees to the county. This landfill is completely private with no obligation to pay anything to San Diego County.
Finally, capacity at existing landfills is sufficient to take all of San Diego County’s waste for years to come, and new technologies have made new landfills unnecessary. San Diego County does not need this dump. — Robert Smith, Chairman, Pala Band of Mission Indians
More lanes or more mass transit?
Rather than derailing the proposed I-5 expansion as the U-T suggests in “Detouring I-5 expansion is a bad idea” (Editorial, Feb. 19), my legislation attempts to promote the inclusion of more cost-effective, environmentally sensible ways to reduce traffic congestion in our coastal communities. Right now the freeway expansion project is estimated to cost between $3.4 billion and $4.5 billion and to take more than 40 years to build depending on which of the four alternatives is selected. That equates to more than $125 million per mile for the least expensive alternative or $166 million for the most expensive. No one would consider either of those to be a cost-effective use of our limited public funds.
And what do commuters gain after spending $3.4 billion? It will take seven minutes longer to travel from La Jolla Village Drive to Oceanside during rush hour. For $4.5 billion, drivers will save one minute and carpools will save 10 minutes.
Those who travel along the corridor and those who live within the corridor deserve to have their concerns addressed. I believe that we can provide a better solution to meet the needs of San Diego. — Sen. Christine Kehoe, San Diego
I can remember when the road from San Diego to Los Angeles was three lanes, one north, one south and one for passing. Since that time we have frequently been advised that by building or widening a freeway we could solve our road congestion. By the time the work was completed, the roadway was as overcrowded as before.
It would seem to me that by now we would have realized that paving over more precious California real estate is not the answer. There is an obvious solution. If we had spent the money on public transportation that we have spent on freeways, we would be the envy of the world and we all would have easy access to rapid public transportation.
But it is not just about money. Think of the lives that have been adversely affected by horrendous freeway accidents that would have been averted by a good public transportation system.
Let us resolve to not waste any more money or lives on freeways. Let us fund a first-rate public transportation system that will benefit everyone. — Theodore V. Cook, Mission Hills
Sen. Christine Kehoe speaks with a forked tongue. She is against I-5 expansion saying, “Better transit should precede freeway expansion,” as indicated in “Kehoe bill would put kink in I-5 widening” (Local, Feb. 18). “The better transit” implied by the senator is to improve local roads and access before widening the freeway. I find this odd as Kehoe virtually single-handedly in 2007 killed the extension of Regents Road through Rose Canyon via Senate Bill 373. So I wonder what the senator’s plans are to improve local transit in University City as well as fire and ambulance response time. — D. Parker, San Diego
Club’s philanthropic efforts not noted
While the University Club’s primary purpose is not a philanthropic one (“Where deal$ are made,” Business, Feb. 24), the club does have philanthropic endeavors. It has an annual fundraising event to support the Lamp of Learning literacy program and also has several committees that have charitable missions.
I’m chairman of the Giving Group, which gets club members involved in our community through monthly events featuring a speaker from a local nonprofit organization and periodic community service projects. I’m also involved in the Military Support Network (MSN), which hosts monthly happy hours that are open to military personnel and feature a military-related speaker. MSN also holds events that support military-related charities. — Bob Alden, University Club member, San Diego
Combating the spike in gas prices
While I am not surprised by the lack of response by President Obama to the quickly rising price of gasoline at the pump, I am shocked that I have heard absolutely nothing from any politician advocating the immediate lifting of oil drilling limitations currently in effect in our country. Such a move would immediately result in a drop in price at the pump. — Hal Segal, San Diego
