Dear Editor:

September 12 marked one of the saddest days in the history of Hillcrest when San Diego’s City Council voted to allow a 12-story mixed-used development into our neighborhood. Our great councilwoman, Toni Atkins, led the City Council to vote in favor of the project. Donna Frye cast the lone vote against the development.

Am I confused, is Donna Frye our representative?

We had many meetings with Toni and her staff regarding 301 University. Each time we were told, “I have not made my decision on the project because I want to hear all the public testimony.” Were we fools to believe such a line from Toni? Did we completely trust her because she’s our lesbian sister and would never betray us? Did we believe (in the day and age of Enron and Duke Cunningham) that Toni Atkins would never sell herself out to a developer? Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

Our local grassroots group, Save Hillcrest, had a confidential source within her office indicating that Toni had made up her mind several weeks before the big vote. But how could she make up her mind without the public testimony? Or did she only listen to one side? We noted that she read her position into the record. When did she have time to write it if she was listening to our public testimony? Or did she really not care about our public testimony?

I am always proud of my fellow LGBT community members who are elected to public office. It makes me feel like a family member did well. But, Toni’s actions were completely inexcusable for any community whether gay or straight. She failed to lead when we needed her most. She failed to act responsibly when our community’s character was in jeopardy. She failed to delineate real issues from those driven by greed. At the end of the day, our elected officials must lead and not merely patronize the community.

I was on KPBS radio the day after the devastating vote when 301’s developer Bruce Leidenberger joined in via phone to rebut my comments. Tom Fudge, our host, asked the developer if Toni was paid off. Bruce said, “No.” Tom followed up with, “Have you ever contributed to Toni campaign?” Bruce answered, “Yes.” What real reason would one contribute to someone’s campaign at a local level unless one had some vested interest? Toni had an opportunity to lead and do the right thing, but she chose to stand with the developer and against the Hillcrest community.

So, is she the right leader for District 3? Is it time for a recall? I would be happy to accept emails on this topic at JTNHillcrest@cox.net. Perhaps it’s time for another gay person to step up and lead this community. In the midst of San Diego’s pension scandal, the Kroll report and now the great 301 battle in Hillcrest, perhaps Toni will do the right thing and step down? Or, will greed compromise that decision, too?

John Taylor

Dear Editor:

I work and live near the 12-story residential and retail building the city council approved last week at University and 3rd Avenue. There are good arguments for it, and good arguments against it. In the end, the fact that it adds more than 100 public parking spaces and may energize local shop owners—mostly small businesses— is probably the best reason to approve the project.

Councilmember Toni Atkins’s record on the Council advocating inclusion of affordable housing, creating stronger environmental protections, improving the safety of sidewalks and street crossings all demonstrate her commitment to our neighborhoods. I know her to be of the highest integrity; so I respect her decision even if I might have voted another way; I’ll never know how I would have voted, because I have not walked in her moccasins or listened to dozens of hours of debate on this topic as she has.

I admire the way Atkins carefully weighed all sides before she decided how to vote on this project and it must have been agonizing to have so many people polarized on the issue. I am glad to have a Councilmember who is willing to make tough decisions.

Bob Nelson

Dear Editor:

Thank you Mrs. Frye for voting to protect the integrity of the Hillcrest neighborhood and recognizing the inappropriateness of project 301 University as reported in the Sept. 13 edition of the Union-Tribune (“Hillcrest project to add parking/Council approves 12-story building”).

Once again District Three’s council representative, Toni Atkins, voted against the residential constituents. And Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who represents neighboring Mission Hills, also made the wrong choice.

One hundred, twenty-one underground parking spaces will never, ever make up for the 12-floor, 96-unit monstrosity that will forever ruin the familial, village-like charm that once was Hillcrest.

Has anyone given thought where to re-route traffic during the construction period or when the council tinkers with the idea of turning University Avenue into a one-way street heading east? I thought not!

In city, county or statewide elections, Donna Frye will continue to garner my support. Toni Atkins: your time is up.

Lee A. Schoenbart

Dear Editor:

Just when we thought it was behind us, up it pops again. Last year it was the Gay Pride board’s easy tolerance of sexual predators working at Pride events where children are present. Tolerated unti D.A. Bonnie Dumanis put her foot down and removed the threat to children.

Now it’s the Gay Center’s turn to be carefree. This radical bunch has decided it’s all right for teenage girls to undergo secret abortions without their parents’ knowledge. That’s right. Only their board calls it “a woman’s right to make their own choices.” It makes no difference to them if the “woman” is a 13-year-old unmarried minor involved with a twentysomething guy, married or otherwise. The Center calls this “privacy.” The law has a more accurate word. It’s called statutory rape.

The Gay Center’s Executive Director, Richard Valdez, you see, doesn’t trust parents of teenage unmarried pregnant girls. If they were like the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, I wouldn’t either. But most parents are not like her’s.

In most states where parental notification exists, sexual exploitation of minor girls by adults has been drastically reduced. Girls are not choosing to become runaways, risking abortions which can be life-threatening, or being victimized by older men again and again. In the California legislature, pro-abortion fanatics have prevented such needed laws from passing. Now this bunch is in control of the Gay Center.

But it doesn’t have to be that way. We can stop them the way we stopped the Pride board radicals from putting their predator pals first and innocent kids last. It’s called Prop 85 and it protects kids who lack the emotional maturity to protect themselves. Last year it carried in San Diego’s special election and would have won throughout the state if not for the unpopularity of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Just remember that parental notification isn’t about choice since many pro-choice voters believe in it as well as believe in their children’s safety. It isn’t for the parents who don’t care what their kids are out doing. I don’t know if Valdez is a parent...I hope not. But if he were one, I think I can safely guess which kind of parent he’d be. I urge you to vote yes on Prop 85 if you believe that parents should be the legal guardians of their minor children.

John Primavera