Let's move beyond divisive language in Palm Springs Section 14 debate
The “Your Turn” column in Sunday’s paper by Areva Martin is well-written, well thought out and persuasive − much as you would expect from an attorney. However, I do object to her use of a “trope” (her words) in referring to “older and white residents” who object to her viewpoint. I’m not one of them; in general, I agree with her.
The destruction of homes in Section 14 was a travesty. But two wrongs don’t make a right as we all know. Generalizations of groups of people is never helpful. I found the overall tone of the column to be as divisive as columns from the Frank Bogert crew and their supporters and an example of “cherry picking” news articles and even some facts. I suspect that trying to push all the blame on the leaders of the city of Palm Springs at the time is a legal strategy of going after the only available theoretical “deep pockets.”
The tribe with their unique legal status may be untouchable in this case, despite potential complicity. I would hope we could all rise above the rhetoric and work together to resolve this issue.
Dan Garrow, Palm Springs
California's affordable housing solutions will create unintended consequences
After reading the article in Sunday's edition, “Did a new state law end single-family zoning in the Coachella Valley?” I realized that the new law across our country to build low-income, affordable housing in all urban communities has come to roost. The article is missing this important fact and makes it sound like all that is being proposed with SB9 is splitting existing single-family lots into two units, providing more housing opportunities for the homeowner, like renting a second unit on their property.
This is preposterous! This government's plan is to diversify all urban communities!
It is being presented in a different way, ignoring the real reason which is to change the balance of people living in urban cities. People moved to and have lived in these areas for years and now, all of a sudden, they must be diversified? This will only lead to a mass exodus in neighborhoods across America, instead of allowing the imposition by the government to decide where we would like to live and with whom.
Mary Jane Dante, Rancho Mirage
College of the Desert's board needs an overhaul
I hope the former College of the Desert board majority is happy with their handiwork. It was no small feat to upend and isolate so many stakeholders through their back-door choice of a short-lived presidency, who soon wreaked havoc in so many local communities.
Such stellar boardsmanship deserves praise for igniting such conflagration in our midst.
Unfortunately, the school's real choice candidate has already departed, seeking greener fields of well-deserved appreciation. Unless she can be enticed to return, today's board would do well to seek a change-leader who is able to suture the numerous wounds and get COD back on track educating − without grandiose board plans to reward one's network rather than seeking actual leadership ability and unification.
James K. Lewis, La Quinta
This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Palm Springs Section 14 debate divisive
