In Our Mailbox - Letters to the Editor Graphic

Right Universe

Dear Editor,

In this universe, Belmont Shore residents think it's okay to have a marijuana dispensary on Second Street, adjacent to our residential neighborhoods.

That makes it easier for me (senior age 65 – on fixed income with mobility issues) and others to get what we want.

Shame on opinionated Jean Crane last week, who throws shade on a local business that helps us. Cannabis does not kill. Crane fails to fault another Second Street business (Rite Aid) for their participation in the opioid crisis annually killing tens of thousands. Hypocrisy is appalling.

The importance of “front and center” dispensaries providing ease of access cannot be diminished by narrow-minded naysayers. The majority of voters in California and Long Beach agree. The debate about medicinal legitimacy is a foul waste of time and effort.

Besides — get ready for recreational use. Surely Crane will complain about the increase of giggling and local businesses catering to those suffering the munchies.

Crane also complains about the addition of two security guards. Apparently she prefers less security on Second Street rather than more. Crane is expressing sentiments that are bad for Second Street business success.

Sadly, Crane also complains about money — tens of thousands the business owners spent for tenant improvements plus the significant amount of money business spent securing the location during years of useless licensing delay. Despite the long-term viability of this earnest business, Crane slams the property owners as simply “greedy” and not good people doing good business. The only thing embarrassing is Crane's sanctimonious letter to the editor. 

Thank you Harry Saltzgaver for exposing the truth about the dispensary business next door. And good luck to the business of Connected. I have not patronized our newest Second Street business, but thanks to the Grunion Gazette I most certainly will.

Dean M. Gray

Belmont Shore

No To Change

Dear Editor,

I disagree with the attitude in your article "Deal With Constant Of Change." We citizens aren't serfs having to submit to the edicts of the government lord masters pushing change for their own benefits, but we are free to resist it.

The government apparatchiks need more money to fund their exorbitant compensation packages, which in Development Services I read is paid largely from the developers. (Editor’s Note: There is no connection between permit fees and salaries paid to Development Services employees.)

And change obviously can be good or bad, of which the bad should be resisted in a just world.

The projections of population growth used to push this increasing density squeeze on us has been not from ourselves but from immigration and their progeny. And for the future, why should past happenings determine it when change is constant and can created to our own happiness?

I see the real issue of non-affordability of housing and rental prices in the area for people as being caused mainly from the Fed's emergency policies of ZIRP from 2008, (zero percent interest rate policy), which has been ongoing and which they can't get out of without collapsing their whole house of debt leveraged cards.

But since these real problems are of a much larger scale, the city and state are planning to kick the can a bit further with their proposed increased density and lessening of our space to try to keep funded their robust pay and pension packages with more units to tax and developers fees paid to them.

Tom Brown

Long Beach

 

Load comments