Oct. 16 2013 10:19 AM

Our readers tell us what they think

    Formula for disaster

    Regarding your Sept. 18 editorial: So, Mr. Editor where does the business-person's extra income come from to pay the minimum-wage increases?

    Do more people rush in the doors because a worker is now getting more money? No! What will CityBeat do? Rush out and hire more people? Doubtful. Raise your ad rates? Will that bring in more advertisers? Doubtful. You may lose advertisers overall, and revenue remains the same.

    Most people in low-paying jobs are being paid what the job is worth, not necessarily what the person is worth. The whole idea of one being self-employed is to earn an income, not to give other people jobs. In the face of the government telling us how to run our businesses, if most self-employed people need more help, they will look to part-timers. Otherwise, little or no profits equals no business and, ultimately, no jobs for anyone.

    So what if top economists think it matters little? How many of them have their own businesses? California, a unionocracy under Democratic Party control for the past 50 years, is a shining example of how to run a state, isn't it? Let's see, highest taxes in the nation, higher regulatory burdens for businesses, highest number of people on welfare, highest number of people incarcerated, sky-high debt levels and the highest pension obligations (state / county / city combined), just to mention a few.

    How does the formula you support improve things?

    Paul Richard, Park West

    Who controls Faulconer?

    Thanks for the Sept 18 editorial on Kevin Faulconer. He's an empty suit controlled by Downtown interests, the Lincoln Club, the San Diego County Taxpayer's Association and the Chamber of Commerce.

    Janice Lord, Point Loma

    A ‘sorry' trio

    Regarding your Sept. 18 cover story about Donna Frye, Marco Gonzalez and Cory Briggs: What a bunch of sorry people. They really had to anguish over what was right or wrong in this case of Bob Filner, because they needed to protect their progressive movement? This was a question in their tiny little minds? So much for ethics!

    I guess in the end, they had something that approximated ethics, but they had to claw pretty hard at themselves to find it. They are not heroic figures in all this. In the end it, was protection of the progressive movement that stirred them to action, not the desire to protect the victims of this pervert.

    Ed Struiksma, Rancho Santa Margarita

    Constitutional issue

    Regarding the issue of zoning laws prohibiting food trucks or medical-marijuana dispensaries because "there's nothing in writing that specifically allows them" ["Editorial," Sept. 25]: That is much more than "awfully frivolous." To me, it seems downright unconstitutional.

    It's the often-overlooked Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, just because it's not specifically mentioned as a right doesn't mean you can't do it.

    It means that, in America, laws are passed to prevent harmful actions, not to allow only certain permitted things. In other words, if the zoning codes don't specifically prohibit pot shops, they are thereby permitted. Same with food trucks—especially on private property, and doubly so because they already have a business license, and food-service ratings even.

    What about if I'm throwing a private party on my property? Can I have a barbecue trailer? No? Can anyone say "slippery slope"? This is just one of many Constitutional protections that have somehow fallen by the wayside of late. ACLU: Are you there?

    Michael-Leonard Creditor, La Jolla

    Fletcher and Krvaric

    Regarding John R. Lamb's Oct. 2 "Spin Cycle" column: As a former PAC chair for a local union, I have gotten an opportunity to talk with Nathan Fletcher at length multiple times. As an independent, I found it strange that he tied his wagon to the GOP. His views swung from right to left, as most voters' do.

    I was happy to see him going independent, but I know why he went Democrat— money. When was the last time a nonpartisan mayor was elected in a nonpartisan San Diego mayoral election? I have been repeatedly told by political consultants that it can't be done.

    The fact that Fletcher will not have some party wog blowing in his ear is a plus. Remember, the second largest voter group in San Diego is decline-to-states.

    As for Tony Krvaric, be nice to him— his support for Faulconer should make a Fletcher / Alvarez final a done deal. What a douche!

    Woody DuBois, San Carlos


    See all events on Friday, Dec 2