Your sour grapes editorial (June 5), "What Does It All Mean?" on the recent city elections made statements that should be offensive to any L.A. resident who can use common sense to solve a problem. Apparently the writer hasn't read The Times' articles about the city's traffic, roads, sewers or any other component of the infrastructure. It shows how isolated he is from the concerns and frustrations we carry with us. What person doesn't engage in at least one conversation a day about smog, funny things in the drinking water or some other environmental problem our city officials should be dealing with at the highest priority.
In recent years we've been asked to share our cars with strangers, to keep our houses and offices at uncomfortable temperatures and even to use our bathroom twice but flush only once. We've done these things in the spirit of being good citizens who have "bitten the bullet." We keep waiting for things to get better. But what happens?
Many members of the commercial development industry don't see our conservation efforts as a sign of good faith and teamwork that will help them to alleviate the urban pressures. Rather, they see those extra spaces on the freeway and additional kilowatts of electricity as new resources to be exploited in the name of "growth." That term, by the way, is their euphemism for "profit," not the implied improvement in quality of life.