Local control in South Pas is on the ballot

Re “South Pasadena says new ballot measure to beef up ‘local control,’” (Aug. 31):

Your recent headline about the South Pasadena ballot measure to “beef up local control” couldn’t be farther from the truth. It is deceptively written, where a yes means no and visa versa.

Control is actually taken away from the voter/citizens of South Pasadena after 40 years, with a yes vote, and put into the hands of the City Council and possibly the state with “the new limit will be no less than 84 feet.”

Removing the 45-foot height limit and not replacing it with a sensible height, then theoretically the Empire State Building could be built on Fair Oaks.

This measure does not encourage sensible housing development and will not promote the character and affordability of neighborhoods. Instead, it will promote profit-driven development that dwarfs anything ever built in South Pasadena.

South Pasadena population is 53% renters. They will be the collateral damage with mass evictions and displacement.

Single-family neighborhoods, mult-family adjacent, will be affected as well as other neighborhoods not aware of the true nature of this ballot measure.

Vote no and ask the city to go back and do their homework in a transparent process for the people, not developers.

— Joanne Nuckols, South Pasadena

Subsidizing solar

In her Aug. 25 column, Susan Shelley says that going green by 2035 will cause the average rates for electricity to rise from $144 a month to $550. Of course she doesn’t mention the upside. The time it takes to recoup one’s investment for installing solar panels and batteries is a number of years but with electricity increasing nearly four-fold the recovery time will be only a quarter as long as it currently is. Compound that with inevitable subsidies from the state and federal governments and it will be even less time.

— Ron Garber, Duarte

Legacy admissions in California universities

Re “Lawmaker push ban on legacy admissions” (Sept. 2):

What difference does it make if they ban legacy admissions at elite private universities and colleges that have highly selective admissions practices? The costs of attendance alone is prohibitive. That’s not the problem. The problems lies in the admissions process with the University of California system and the California State University system, which make it practically impossible for the children of California residents to go to a public university in California.

Their programs all seem to be impacted and their selection criteria for admissions seems like a lottery. Californians are far better off applying to colleges out of state through the Western Undergraduate Exchange Program or applying to New Mexico Tech to study highly sought after degrees in engineering and science in Socorro, New Mexico. There are only 1,200 students in a town of 5,000.

— Kirk Felmar, San Pedro

California’s electric vehicle charging stations

Re “24K EV charging stations added this year” (Aug. 31): So far, the state project has added 150,000 charging stations with our tax dollars. Most are to provide less than 35 miles to get the owner home so they can spend their electricity to fully charge their EV car. Only 15,000 stations will provide 100 to 250 miles of driving — who cares? Note that though EV trucks are introduced as well as passenger vehicles, but no EV limos. Past time to stop voting for “representatives” who condone this ridiculous legislation. Of course, most people in California cannot afford EVs, but who cares? Prices will plummet, and we can all afford this goal created by legislators who are supplied with “free” EVs on our tax dollars or can be chauffeured in gas-powered limos.

— Hayden Lening, Claremont

Hostage protests

Watching the protests in Israel over the horrific murders of six more hostages, I have to ask why we weren’t seeing Palastinians protesting for cease-fire and the return of their people? Why are they not telling Hamas to end the killing and demand a cease-fire to bring an end to this war?

— R. Lazarus, Anaheim Hills