Big Tujunga Wash

* Re “Critics Fear Wash’s Days Are Numbered,” Feb. 24.

I have attended many meetings and hearings about the development of [Big Tujunga Wash]. I think Foothills Golf Development Group has given care and consideration in following the contours of the land and in preserving the natural wildlife in this area.

Opposition to development of the golf course cries about destroying the natural beauty of the wash. Beauty? Have these people seen the garbage that people feel free to dump in this area? And not one of those opposing groups has lifted a hand to clean up this eyesore.

The wash is a haven for drug dealers. Development of this land would oust them.

We have the opportunity to change a desecrated area into a green, attractive tract of land with activities not only for golfers but for horseback riders, bicyclers, walkers, etc. Residents and businesses in the Sunland-Tujunga area are overwhelmingly behind this project. We should be allowed to determine the future of our own community.

MARY LEE TIERNAN

Sunland

* This wash is a living museum, a nature study site, a wildlife sanctuary and one of the last remaining large open tracts of land in the city of Los Angeles. There are two golf courses in the area already, but you will never replace this unique ecosystem.

The city of Los Angeles should protect this area without hesitation. Think about the educational institutions that could use it to enhance their scientific studies. This is a treasured land that should be respected and preserved for future generations.

FRANCIS, ELISA

and MARC CANU

Sunland

* I am writing to express my support of the Red Tail Golf and Equestrian [Center] project in Lake View Terrace. Our community is in need of positive social amenities. The new developer’s project is to be a public golf course, available to the community without enormous membership fees. They have been exceptionally considerate of the heavy equestrian usage in the area. Finally, according to the plans, there are adequate accommodations being made for the environmental impact to the area.

This project is the best possible use for this area.

MAUREEN K. MILLER

Lake View Terrace

* According to your article, 91% of California’s [native] alluvial scrub habitat has already been destroyed. [Sunland-Tujunga Chamber of Commerce President Kathleen Anthony] states, “I can’t imagine anybody opposing something so beautiful” as a golf course. Southern California already has an abundant supply of that particular form of beauty. What I can’t imagine is the inability of people such as Anthony to appreciate that nature has its own intrinsic value, a value that goes far beyond our ability to exploit it for economic gain.

ROBERT McKAY

Studio City

* Someone gets a bright idea about how to turn an ugly, debris-filled, graffiti-spoiled, gang-infested, weedy site into a beautiful, well-kept green terrace (paid for and maintained by private resources), and someone comes along and opposes the idea because of some stupid little plant that happened to sink its roots in the sandy riverbed.

Never mind the hundreds of community residents who would love to see part of Big Tujunga Wash transformed into a lush, green playground. The environmentalists are afraid for the demise of some spiny little [plant], and perhaps some potential financial dealings that would be killed if this project moves ahead.

Already, opposition is mounting from people who do not live in Lake View Terrace. It doesn’t seem quite fair that a few people from another planet can make such a monumental decision about our community.

JANICE FARMER

Lake View Terrace

* One important point seldom mentioned during the debate is that there are actually three sides to this issue, not simply preservationists versus developers and most of the local community. On the third side are the various groups of squatters in the wash--vagrants, drug dealers, dirt bikers and so forth. By sheer force of occupancy, squatters have taken control of the wash from the owners and local community, and from preservationists too.

The City Council can choose between two responsible actions and one irresponsible action. Voting “yes” for the golf course is the only realistic option among the two good alternatives. Voting “yes” for absolute preservation of the wash might be a lofty ideal, but it would cost too much city money to restore and defend a wilderness already overrun with the ills of urbanization. If instead the council should exercise the third option--voting “no” to the golf course but failing to vote “yes” to funding for preservation--then I shall expect to see council members explaining their vote on the 6 o’clock news, surrounded by their true constituents--vagrants, lawbreakers and other squatters who will have emerged victorious.

SAM DOLINAR

Sunland