Dear Editor:

I hope that if Mr. Portantino wins the 3rd District City Council seat, he’ll do something about public transportation in this area. For all her populist rhetoric, Toni Atkins left those of us who use public transportation to fend for ourselves in an increasingly crowded, inefficient system. Under her watch, I saw public transportation deteriorate like never before since I began using it in 1994. Moving around the 3rd District from, say, my job to an evening appointment has become a debilitating experience. Oh yeah, lots of new buildings, police stations, fire stations and even a proposed library. I hope Mr. Portantino does better. We deserve it.

Abelardo Bernal

Dear Editor:

In your 1-26-06 issue Nicole Murray-Ramirez slams the Chargers as a bunch of losers who can leave San Diego. Apparently Mr. Murray-Ramirez does not understand how important an NFL team is to a city. The economic impact to San Diego from the 1998 Super Bowl was estimated to be 295 million dollars. The 2003 Super Bowl economic impact was estimated around 300 million dollars. An added benefit, free of charge, is the promotional value San Diego gains from nationwide and international media exposure. This type of exposure brings in tourism dollars that help fund the cities many services. This is probably one of the reasons the city of Houston spent 5 billion dollars for an NFL team and Los Angeles is trying everything in their power to have an NFL team.

As for Qualcom Stadium being fine and the Chargers are always asking for money Mr. Murray-Ramirez is again mistaken. The Chargers are not asking for the city to pay for a stadium. In fact, the Chargers are willing to pay to have it built along with redeveloping the area surrounding the stadium. The redevelopment will include housing, restaurants, improvement of the infrastructure, and the environmental clean up of the old gas storage facility off the I-15 and Friars Road. Apparently the idea of creating new jobs and housing for the citizens of San Diego is not important to Mr. Murray-Ramirez.

If the Chargers were to leave would Mr. Murray-Ramirez make sure the continuation of the many community contributions the Chargers make including blood drives, holiday toy and food drives, athletic equipment and monetary donations to local schools?

I suggest Mr. Murray-Ramirez sticks to what he knows best self promotion.

Jim Eledge

Dear Editor:

The recent scandals involving lobbyists are very alarming. It seems to me that the most obvious method of addressing pending legislation would be for panels to present pro and con information to congress as a whole. Each side of the panel would present its case, lawmakers could ask questions, discuss the issues, and then vote. If a legislator doesn’t attend these sessions, then they can’t vote on the issue.

The current system, which involves highly paid lobbyists wining and dining legislators, promotes bribery or, conversely, arm-twisting. It also means that groups which can’t afford lobbyists are not getting a fair or equal opportunity. What’s more, I can’t see any benefit of the current system over group presentations apart from its promoting back-room deals.

Our legislators don’t need lobbyists to stay informed if we push for group presentations to become the norm. If they have the time to have lunches and go golfing with lobbyists to hear just one side of the issue, then they have time to listen to both sides and do their job. The corruption is Washington these days is shameful. If we don’t insist on changes to the status quo, we are essentially partners in the corruption.

Carol Scherbaum

Dear Editor:

As a nonpartisan - neither Democrat nor Republican nor anything else - I need to respond to the recent letter from Bob Ruyack and Matthew Tsien of the Florida Gold Coast Log Cabin Republicans, “Gay Democrats, get a grip. Get the facts!”

While disparaging Gay Democrats for having “little substantive research knowledge”, this letter makes a couple of noteworthy errors and omissions. It lauds Republican Ronald Reagan for opposing the anti-Gay Briggs Initiative (although it misdates it as 1974 rather than 1978) while neglecting to mention that state Senator Briggs, the initiative’s sponsor, was a Republican. And while it compiles a short list of Republicans who have opposed anti-Gay legislation, it doesn’t mention that those pieces of legislation were largely, like the Briggs Initiative, authored by Republicans.

The letter points out a lack of support for our community within certain traditionally Democratic constituencies: African-Americans, Latinos, and members of labor unions. It could go further in making its case of Democratic non-support by stating that it was a Democratic senator, Sam Nunn, who instigated what eventually became the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy regarding military service by LGBT Americans, and a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who signed that policy into law.

Our community’s continuing inequality can be fairly blamed on both the Republicans and the Democrats, regardless of individual members of those parties who may be sympathetic to our cause. It is dishonest, however, for Ruyack and Tsien to fail to mention that the primary source of active opposition to our becoming truly equal citizens is rooted deep within the GOP.

Our community does not benefit from partisanship. Good arguments can be made for GLBT people being in both parties. Good arguments can be made for LGBT people being in neither party. Whatever one’s choice of affiliation, we all need to work together for equality and cease with the pointless bickering.

Rev Keith W Ramsey