By Matt Coker
By R. Scott Moxley
By Charles Lam
By Nick Schou
By Gustavo Arellano
By Gustavo Arellano
By Steve Lowery
By R. Scott Moxley
Contact us via voice mail at (714) 825-8432, or by e-mail: email@example.com. Or write to Letters to the Editor, OC Weekly, P.O. Box 10788, Costa Mesa, CA 92627. Or fax: (714) 708-8410. Letters may be edited for clarity and length. All correspondence must include your home city or service provider and a daytime phone number.GIMME SHELTER
I have just read Bob Emmers' article on the Orange County Animal Shelter ("Pet Hell," May 14). It is difficult to believe that such an educated, prosperous community could harbor such inhumanity in its midst. The perceived need for catchpoles for cats left me stupefied. Obviously, people who think they need those inhumane devices are not animal people and should not be employed in a situation in which they come into contact with innocent, unwanted animals.
Many shelters all over the country try to find homes for their animals—and if they can't, they give them a gentle and peaceful end. "Good death" is the definition of euthanasia; the killing methods for cats described in the article are anything but that.
Let us hope the animal lovers of Orange County will come forward and clean up this cruel mess at their animal "shelter."—Bonnie Kalmbach, via e-mail
The Orange County Animal Shelter has good and bad employees. I can see why some might be insensitive because they have to clean up everybody else's mess. They serve—what?—20 cities? That's a lot of dogs and cats. And with that comes a lot of irresponsible pet owners.
The shelter is definitely not state-of-the-art. This is all about money. We need a new people- and animal-friendly shelter that is equipped for winter weather. Programs need to be implemented to make it an "adoption center," not an animal shelter. Hours need to be extended in summer months, and the shelter needs to be open on Sundays. We need to address this issue in a positive way to make the Orange County Animal Shelter user-friendly.—Therese M. Galvan, Santa Ana IT DOESN'T REGISTER
How refreshing it is to know that one Orange County paper (the Weekly) and one writer (R. Scott Moxley) haven't been bought off by the real-estate developers ("Sympathy for the Devil: The Register's upside-down campaign for sprawl," May 14). Like its stance on most issues, the Register and [its editorial writer] Steve Greenhut are nothing if inconsistent. They love to slam the high costs of government one day and praise developers who demand and get absurd taxpayer subsidies the next. Thanks for cutting through the bullshit.—J. Matthews, Newport Beach
Moxley correctly condemned the Mission Viejo City Council's $41.6 million tax subsidy to the private owner of the Mission Viejo Mall. However, in the next sentence, he stated Greenhut was "not troubled by nauseatingly cozy relationships between developers and government officials."
In a scathing editorial, Greenhut blasted Mission Viejo officials and the Simon Property Group regarding that mall subsidy. He is an ardent foe of developers seeking corporate welfare in the form of taxpayer-funded redevelopment subsidies. Furthermore, Greenhut has editorially supported grassroots groups against arrogant officials, condemning Mission Viejo City Councilman Bill Craycraft for attempting to interfere with access to public documents when Craycraft sought to publicize the names of individual requesters.—Brad Morton, Mission Viejo Committee for Integrity in Government R. Scott Moxley responds:The Register preaches that our local governments have been captured by wild-eyed environmentalists who do nothing but hinder defenseless real-estate developers. In fact, it is the developers who—through massive campaign contributions—dominate many of our city councils. Evidence? Plans for as many as 60,000 new houses throughout the county are near completion. TheReg deserves praise when it slams corporate welfare, but far too often, the paper argues from a businessman's fantasyland. Their April 19 editorial, for example, demanded that city councils "step out of the way" of developers. DOWN ON TOWN
Rich Kane's "My Kind of Town" regarding fabulous, glamorous La Habra was right-on (First Person, May 7). Sometimes the truth hurts. Don't La Habra's civic leaders go to livable places on vacation? They have to know about their poor community image. The local government acts as if we should be grateful for paved roads and indoor plumbing! Improving the town's semirural community identity will require state-of-the-art, small-town revitalization.
They could start by televising City Council meetings and creating a pedestrian-oriented downtown in a park-like setting. There's no reason why we have to look like Beirut; plant a tree.
As the town approaches its 75th anniversary in the year 2000 (it was incorporated on Jan. 20, 1925), we can only hope for visionary leadership and some comparative city planning. Thanks for the article; I'm mailing it to every council member.—Robert Dale, member, La Habra 2000
I am mystified by Kane's piece. Having lived there for most of my life, I am most grateful to have never seen the La Habra he painted for your readers. How unfortunate that his experiences as a "proud resident" of 19 years left him with such a bitter taste in his mouth. How deeply unfortunate, too, that La Habra is left with an equally bitter impression of Kane and his talent.—Connie Michaud, Hull, Massachusetts A CRYSTAL BALL