Regarding "Paradise unpaved: Most of bayfront parcel would be preserved," (Editorial, May 8):

The San Diego Union-Tribune waxes poetic about parks and walkways for the grounds near the San Diego County administration building but insists that boxy condo towers are good enough for Chula Vista.

A recent professional survey shows that the overwhelming majority of Chula Vistans does not want residences built on the mid- bayfront's remaining 125 acres. There are other possibilities that would bring in real revenue for the city, provide much needed parks and protect wildlife.

Why are you so hostile to any proposals except for those made by the developer?

JUDY CASCALES

Chula Vista

The Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge was established as mitigation for the destruction of wetlands caused by joining Interstate 5 and Highway 54. It does not require the development of the adjoining mid-bayfront property in any particular way. It does require, however, that any development not harm the wildlife refuge.

The Sierra Club agreed not to oppose development on the mid- bayfront land. But the Environmental Health Coalition has been involved in this issue for 13 years. The group is not opposing development; it is insisting that the community be given a voice in how it is developed.

THERESA ACERRO

Chula Vista

Has the person who writes your editorials on Chula Vista ever visited the Sweetwater Marsh National Wildlife Refuge? Has he seen our two gorgeous golden eagles or the endangered Peregrine falcon? Has he any idea what an absolute treasure we have in the South Bay? We have the opportunity to preserve and enhance this jewel for future generations. The world is too busy, crowded and noisy. We need a very special area like this to restore our spirits.

JUDY CAVE

Chula Vista

It troubles me that Chula Vista would even consider Pacifica Cos. as the developer of the mid-bayfront. The company has never built the type of hotel that the city wants, and its labor practices are appalling. The California Coastal Commission and the local labor council, as well as the Environmental Health Coalition, have all sent letters to Pacifica condemning its labor policies.

DAVID DiDONATO

Chula Vista

Your editorial draws a great deal of attention to the survey commissioned by the Environmental Health Coalition, which reveals that Chula Vistans overwhelmingly oppose mid-bayfront development plans. Why is it that on April 17, when survey results were released in a press conference in Chula Vista, the Union-Tribune failed to write any article about the results? And why all the attention now? One must guess that the effects of community opposition can no longer be ignored.

SHARON FLOYD

Chula Vista

Copyright 2003 Union-Tribune Publishing Company. Used by Permission