Spelling it out
Re "Residents near Hollywood sign want tourists to get lost," Sept. 19
Headlines such as this one may sell papers, but they do not contribute to a constructive and productive conversation. Hollywoodland bears no hostility toward tourists.
Unlike world-famous landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Statue of Liberty, the Hollywood sign is surrounded by more than 4,000 acres of highly flammable brush. Unaware of this fact, tourists from around the world frequently discard cigarettes in an area subject to extremely hazardous brush fires. Increasing traffic along our narrow, winding hillside streets impedes police, fire and paramedic services, and it creates a dangerous context in which both human lives and property are put at grave risk.
These are the concerns we are attempting to address. Our message was never "go home."
Bruce Mahler
Hollywood
Anyone who has moved near the Hollywood sign in the last 70 years knew it was a tourist attraction. You can't move to an area like that and then complain about tourists. That's like moving near Disneyland and complaining about the tourists in the area.
If they don't like it, they should move. The sign and the tourists were likely there first.
Eric Andrist
Valley Village
For some, it's a nightmare
Re "Dream come true?," Editorial, Sept. 16
How about a dream come true for our own children? Why do we as taxpayers have an obligation to help pay for educating illegal immigrants at our public universities? Let them become legal or get their education in their own countries.
I'm sorry if I sound uncompassionate, but until we have a healthier budget, we cannot afford to keep spending money we don't have on making people who are here illegally happy.
Marlene K. Mariani
Encinitas
It is especially upsetting when, as this piece notes, you consider that "these undocumented immigrants would be allowed to earn a degree but still would not have the right to work here." Why are we financing degrees that won't be used at the expense of a deserving legal resident?
My daughter would like to attend UCLA. I was laid off in January; fortunately, I am employed again now, but our finances are depleted. Thus, even if she is accepted at UCLA, I won't be able to pay for her to go. I am truly terrified when contemplating her future.
My ancestors fought in numerous wars and helped build this country. If anyone is entitled to the blessings provided by living in our great state, it should be my daughter. Yet thanks to our government, through no fault of her own she will have to attend community college.
Ann Doty-Mitchell
Los Angeles
Danger from our drugs
Re "Drugs now deadlier than autos," Sept. 18
It wouldn't be at all surprising to find that the increased abuse of prescription drugs somewhat coincides with pharmaceutical companies increasingly marketing their products directly to consumers.
Though I do not wish to demean the seriousness of the maladies that many of these drugs are intended to treat, the advertisements cause semi-hysterical laughter because the possible risks associated with imbibing these drugs often sound far worse than the conditions they treat. Side effects I've heard include blindness, a sudden drop in blood pressure, suicidal thoughts and death.
Do drug companies want to actually help those in need, or do they simply try to make ever more money?
Lewis Redding
Arcadia
Traffic fatalities have gone down because of protective measures that have been implemented. With opiate overdose, there is also a very significant protective measure: take-home naloxone.
Naloxone can be used by laypersons on someone experiencing overdose, has few harmful side effects and has saved thousands of lives.
Currently, naloxone is distributed by trained health workers in more than 200 sites in the U.S., primarily to drug injectors. In North Carolina, the state medical association has recommended it also be given out with prescription opiates to combat its overdose epidemic. We should be doing the same in California.
What has been done for injectors can also be done for pill users.
Hilary McQuie
Oakland
The writer is California director of the Harm Reduction Coalition.
UC in peril
Re "Tuition plan alarms UC board," Sept. 16
It seems more than a bit ironic that members of the University of California Board of Regents are now suddenly alarmed about the potential for up to 16% undergraduate tuition increases each of the next four years. Just this summer they approved yet another tuition increase, resulting in a 17% jump for 2011-12.
Regent Eddie Island is concerned about harming UC's growing population of minority and low-income students. How about the children of California college-educated professionals who could be asked to pay, without any aid, $22,000 in tuition plus room and board? This demographic will shrink as we size up the state of the UC system compared to the incentives offered by some of our outstanding local private universities.
Jeff Kingsberg
Temecula
Warmer days
