Aug. 7 2013 09:23 AM

Our readers tell us what they think

Cool with kid cover

Just a brief note to respond to Al Rodbell's diatribe ["Letters," June 26] about the cover art on the May 22 issue. In a nutshell, I think he needs some psychiatric help. There was nothing sexual or suggestive about the portrayal of Nicole Waszak's daughter. It was an adorable picture of a little girl curling up on the floor. That's it. If Al Rodbell saw more into it, he's got some issues to deal with. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. It was generous of you to publish his letter to the editor, but that doesn't mean there's any validity to it.

Garry Schaeffer, Tierrasanta

Sunroad: city's fault

Just a couple of thoughts for you on the Sunroad issue ["Editorial," July 3]: First, there is nothing inherently wrong with allowing encroachment on public land, especially when there is a public benefit and there is little or no change in the use of that land. This issue is a consideration for the sake of spacing to satisfy the Uniform Building Code, a document I personally find to be too inflexible and onerous at times. The public testimony and expertise stating that the property would be devalued is dubious at best. The park will remain a park, and the public will have the same use after the encroachment as before. This is a matter of a spacing technicality, not the loss of land. The only consideration is if there is enough or any public benefit to warrant allowing the encroachment without compensation to the taxpayers. If this is a housing project, then that alone could be argued as a public benefit, especially if the project includes affordable units.

Secondly, after reading your article, it appears that a lot of people either weren't paying attention, didn't ask the right questions, didn't do their home work or were intent on bypassing the system and hiding it from the public. How and why did the spacing issue get missed in the first place? This kind of stuff happens all the time in many cities and it costs the developer / homeowner money every time. It's infuriating and wrong! An encroachment permit could have fixed that oversight. The question is whose oversight was it and is compensation appropriate? If compensation were warranted and possible, as your article implies, then that should have been a council consideration done in the light of day. It is not up to the mayor to use the system as he has to extort money out of a developer in a back-room deal.

It seems to me that there is plenty of blame to go around here. From my point of view, the scale seems to be tipping the city side toward guilty—especially Mayor Filner.

Jerrold L. Jones, Lemon Grove

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

In response to "The wife retaliates with vengeance" ["Sordid Tales," July 10]: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I always wondered what "W" thought of Edwin Decker's rants about her. I believed that she was the perfect, patient wife with a boundless sense of humor and completely unselfconscious concerning Edwin's articles being published for patrons of whatever bar she works at these days to sit and read in front of her while she pours them beer.

Well, she certainly did set the record straight! Ha! Ha! Maybe Edwin remembers me as the guy who once kissed him on the forehead for making such a cool chick like "W" a happily married woman. Come on Ed, we all know that if it's only three steps to the fridge from your recliner, it's probably at least a half-step shorter than that to the front door.

Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Great read, "W." Your article made me laugh out loud harder than Edwin's has in months.

Benny A. McFadden, Downtown

Write to


See all events on Wednesday, Dec 7