Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: Glendale HomeCollections

Mailbag: Properties would be worse off with no parks

December 07, 2009

The other day I read a curious letter in the Glendale News-Press by a gentleman named Robert Buniatyan (“More city parks lead to higher rent,” Dec. 1).

In the letter, Buniatyan opposes parks, subsidized housing and the Planning Department, arguing that each of these seemingly beneficial ideas causes rents to rise, making them unaffordable for many prospective renters.

Buniatyan deserves credit for creativity and for the courage to jolt us with counterintuitive notions, and I can understand a person being frustrated with zoning laws, design review and all the regulations that come from city planning. Yet, the alternative is bleak.

Advertisement

Without parks, without the rules and regulations that our Planning Department enforces every day, without, even, subsidized housing, rents would surely go down but so would property values.

More importantly, the quality of life in our community would deteriorate. We would see parts of our city sliding into a slum environment. Not a pleasant picture!

Nihilism in city planning is not a solution for achieving affordable rentals.

GERRY RANKIN

Glendale

Rep. Schiff’s vote belies his promises

Like millions of seniors, my health-care choice is Medicare Advantage. I like it and want to keep it.

Several weeks ago I wrote an open letter to the Glendale News-Press, asking Rep. Adam Schiff to keep his repeated promises to support legislation that allows people who like their current health-care coverage to keep it. Because House Resolution 3962 financially guts Medicare Advantage to pay for the new government option, Schiff should have voted against it. Instead, Schiff ignored his prior promises and voted in favor of the bill.

But the story does not end there. At the same time I wrote to the News-Press, I e-mailed Schiff, asking him to vote no on HR 3962. Yesterday, I received a puzzling response. In a rambling, 11-paragraph, 1,000-plus word e-mail, Schiff did not respond to my question. Instead, he defended HR 3962, and specifically the government option.

However, in the middle of his defense of HR 3962, Schiff wrote, and I quote, “If you are satisfied with the benefits provided by your employer, or insurance plan, I fully support the consumer’s choice of retaining that coverage, and will not support any proposal that will preclude your right to keep exactly what you have now.”

Which way is it, Schiff, your word or your vote?

LYNN MCGINNIS

Glendale

Public interest suffers with FAA’s actions

Glendale News-Press Articles
|
|
|