Re: "Chula Vista needs singular vision on bayfront," (Editorial, Jan. 23):

You claim residential development on the Chula Vista Mid- bayfront makes a lot of sense because the parcel sits right next to major transportation -- Interstate 5 and the trolley line. Obviously, you haven't traveled lately on this freeway or ridden the trolley at morning and evening rush hours. Both are seriously overcrowded.

In addition, the City Council has approved Trolley Village, which is a large development on redevelopment land adjacent to I-5 between E and F streets. This will include 350 homes, a hotel, 40,000 square feet for commercial businesses, restaurants and a parking structure. But no one talks about where the children will go to school or what the traffic impact will be from this development.

Meanwhile, discussion of the bay front goes merrily along, totally ignoring this development in the same general area. What we need is planning for the whole area -- not piece by piece as is occurring now.

CAROL SMITH
Chula Vista

Of course, Chula Vista should have one vision for its bayfront. But the Pacifica Companies want to develop their 125 acres right now and the Port District intends to take up to two and a half years to plan its 300 acres. Add to this mix our City Council that just wants to get something built on the Mid-bayfront, in part to help defray the almost half-million dollars a year the Nature Interpretative Center has drained from city coffers every year since 1986.

But this dilemma should not make it mandatory that we accept a massive residential development of up to 3,400 homes on our last precious bayfront land. Granted, we need to build more housing for our children, but we also must face the fact that we can't build homes for everyone who wants to live in California.

SANDRA DUNCAN
Chula Vista

All the surveys show that Chula Vista residents do not want residential development of the bayfront, particularly wall-to-wall condos. They have spoken in one voice for open space.

BOB RECKS
Chula Vista

The development of bayfront property is a matter of public interest and concern that supersedes the plans of a private developer. It's not a question of "no-growthers" -- your term -- not wanting anything to be built on this land, nor is the fact that the property has been used for commercial purposes in the past. It is a matter that involves the public dissatisfaction with the philosophy mirrored in your editorial that there is a crucial and overriding need for commercial and residential development on the bayfront.

The matter transcends the question of the need for residential housing in Chula Vista, the capital of unlimited growth in the entire region. The city has approved almost 32,000 residential units for present or future construction, a staggering, unheard-of figure. More residential units on the bayfront is like throwing gasoline on a fire.

What is beginning to happen in the city of Chula Vista is a growing resistance by the citizens to the uncontrolled development, which is consuming land at an astonishing rate. All of this has been done without regard for the people who will have to live in the transformed, disfigured megapolis. Not once in the entire process of growth in Chula Vista have the citizens had a real voice in what their city is going to be like in the very near future.

The developers, encouraged by editorials such as yours, have been creating a vast sea of rooftops from the sea to the mountains, and the citizens have had enough of it. Scenic views are more important than lining the pockets of developers, abetted by uncaring city planners, and bought-and-paid-for elected officials. Things are going to change, and it's high time for the Union-Tribune to take sides with the citizens and get off the development-at-any-cost bandwagon.

TOM DAVIS
Chula Vista

The good point of your editorial was that the bayfront development will be the face of Chula Vista. But I disagree vehemently that it should include more housing. Has the writer of the editorial bothered to look to the eastern portions of Chula Vista to notice that houses are growing like weeds?

I am the farthest thing from being a "no-growther," but I would like to see the bay front developed into a park for all of Chula Vista or at least into some sort of fun place to go.

TIM McCONNELL
Chula Vista

Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Company. Used by Permission