San Diego is being blinded by the sunshine if it thinks the private sector is the answer to Balboa Park's $259 million in unfunded repairs and priority projects. A recent study by one of San Diego's finest charitable foundations suggested San Diego could form a private conservancy to help Balboa Park that would be comparable to New York's Central Park Conservancy.

San Diego is not New York City, and we have to be more realistic in applying the conservancy model to Balboa Park. Central Park is surrounded by some of the highest-priced real estate in the country. It is the front yard and playground for many wealthy people, their nannies and professional dog walkers. The Central Park Conservancy has raised $325 million. San Diego could not raise $80,000 to save the 2004 December Nights, and it's only thanks to Barona that the 2006 Festival will be held.

Indeed, San Diego has generous donors spread throughout the county but they are not concentrated on the perimeter of Balboa Park. It is overly optimistic to expect donors to embrace at the hundred-million-dollar level a new cause called deferred maintenance that is not very sexy and has no naming rights.

Balboa Park is a people's park. Young and old enjoy the open space, beautiful gardens, great playgrounds, free parking, free organ concerts and wonderful institutions with moderate admission fees and special free resident days each month. I think San Diegans have to bite the bullet and preserve a resource as valuable as Balboa Park. Since the city is in a financial quagmire, we need to look for more direct funding sources.

Sometimes the buck stops at us if we really want something. I would like to propose a public-private partnership financed by a small increase in the sales tax to fund the maintenance of Balboa Park, and perhaps all of our parks. At the same time a watchdog committee will need to be formed to ensure the park money is not used to subsidize political conventions, stadiums or sweetheart pension deals.

MIYO ELLEN REFF
San Diego

Revisiting Prop. 209's arguments not warranted

Regarding “UC ethnic shift revives Proposition 209 debate” (A1, Nov. 27) and “To a lesser degree/Community college grads are few” (Editorial, Nov. 27):

Write us The San Diego Union-Tribune welcomes letters to the editor. Because of the number of letters received, and to allow as many readers as possible to be published, it is the policy of the newspaper to publish no more than one letter from the same author within 120 days. Letters may be edited. It is also our policy to publish letters supporting or opposing a particular issue in a ratio reflecting the number received on each side. To be considered for publication, a letter must include an address, daytime phone number and, if faxed or mailed, be signed. It may be sent to Letters Editor, The San Diego Union-Tribune, Post Office Box 120191, San Diego, CA 92112-0191, faxed to (619) 260-5081 or e-mailed to letters@uniontrib.com. Letters submitted may be used in print or in digital form in any publication or service authorized by the Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

Both the story and editorial, at least in part, point to the common root cause of underrepresented ethnic groups at the University of California, and the low graduation and transfer rates in California community colleges. And it assuredly is not Proposition 209, which “merely” removed racial preference as a primary UC admissions criterion. In point of fact, the aftermath of this proposition – which has withstood U.S. Supreme Court scrutiny – is substantially higher UC graduation rates for blacks and Latinos. To resurrect the race-conscious, pre-209 admissions criteria would be unfair to all ethnic groups: denying admissions to qualified students vying for a finite number of openings; and again admitting under-prepared students, setting them up for virtually certain academic failure.

Palomar College, where I teach English, has substantially higher graduation and transfer rates than the statewide averages cited, but nonetheless I bear witness to a disappointingly large number of students who haven't learned basics that should have been mastered before high school, let alone by graduation. Remediation should not be a major mission of community colleges, who today are all the more impacted, and important, because of limited university capacity.

A far better solution, more directly addressed in the editorial, is better K-12 preparation, across all school districts, not only to respond to the discouraging community college statistics, but to bolster university admissions for underrepresented groups. The No Child Left Behind act, though not without flaws, is an attempt to remedy this problem, predictably greatest in the poorer school districts. Yes, it needs further refinements, and more adequate funding. But please, let's do our homework and not take a giant step backward by revisiting anti-Proposition 209 arguments.

JOHN SHELLENBERGER
Carlsbad

Shell's action on refinery warranted

Regarding “Big oil firms are crimping U.S. supply, data suggest/Shell's attempt to close refinery raised questions,” (A1, Nov. 26):

One aspect of Shell's decision to sell the refinery that was overlooked is the company's obligation to its shareholders to make money. The Bakersfield refinery is very old and inefficient by modern standards.

Spending money to maintain it was clearly not in the best interests of Shell's stockholders, when there were opportunities for investment elsewhere with prospective higher rates of return. Were Shell to continue to invest in projects where rates of return are marginal or dubious, e.g., the Bakersfield refinery, the company would eventually fail, and its contributions to society in the form of petroleum products would cease.

I am a geologist and petroleum consultant and can say that the loss of Shell Oil Co. as a whole would produce world energy supply problems far greater than those caused by the shutdown of the aging and uncertainty of the Bakersfield refinery.

ARTHUR O. SPAULDING
Ojai

Defending judge's decision in the Zucchet case

Regarding “A wise appeal/Feds seek to restore Zucchet's conviction” (Editorial, Nov. 28):

Former San Diego City Councilman Michael Zucchet should remain a free man. Contrary to your editorial, Judge Jeffrey Miller carefully explained his decision. His decision was supported by the facts at the trial.

U.S. Attorney Carol Lam hooked a turtle while going for tuna and should be reprimanded for her judgment to divert resources to this appeal. She was right to go after the strip club scheme, but she cast her net too wide. Juries rarely make mistakes, but they do. Judge Miller made a reasoned and articulate decision when he did the most difficult thing for a judge to do.

JEREMY HAAS
Point Loma

We may be burying ourselves

Regarding “Burying climate change” (Opinion, Nov. 29):

The idea that we can bury our toxic wastes without thought or repercussion to our future is absolutely unbelievable. Come on now. We already bury our nuclear waste and our trash. And now the government thinks it's OK to add CO2 to the mix? It's obvious that Assistant Secretary of Energy Jeffrey Jarrett's thinking has been compromised by big business, or else he'd come up with a more environmentally acceptable solution.

It's time to face facts – we need to conserve our planet, all of it, above and below the ground. If it means we need to change our lifestyle to accomplish this, then so be it. How long will it take to clear our air at the rate we're going? Longer than mine and my grandchildren's lifetimes, I'm sure. Is this the legacy we want to leave to the future?

CAROL D. WESTOVER
San Diego

The Chargers' search for a new address

Regarding “Alliance resurfaces to aid Chargers' quest” (Local, Nov. 29):

I don't understand why San Diego needs the Chargers. Don't the Chargers need San Diego more then the other way around?

Tourists come to San Diego because of what a great place it is, not because of the Chargers. People live in the San Diego area because of the jobs and the great climate, not because of the Chargers. So, shouldn't the Chargers be paying San Diego for the right to stay in the area and not the other way around?

CHRISTIAN JOHNSON
Oceanside

I've followed the ongoing saga of bringing a new stadium to San Diego for two years now. I would say that the writing is on the wall. The Chargers will play elsewhere after 2008.

Aside from the financial troubles of the city, how did this happen? This team has been a part of the city for over 40 years, and it seems the citizens of the city and county could not care less. I see no clamor, no outrage. What I do see is acceptance.

It may not matter to the residents of San Diego, but as a member of the armed forces, I see the smirks from fans of other teams that one of the largest cities in the country can't support the hometown team. They laugh that Arizona can build a state of the art facility, and this city wants the team to play in a stadium that was built in the 1960s.

Why is the paper silent on this issue? Why isn't the impact to SDSU addressed? Why isn't the demise of the two bowl games considered?

That's right. Do you really think those bowl games would stay in San Diego when the Q continues to become rundown? I'm not an expert on the intricacies of funding a new stadium, but I do know that the National Football League has said it will not expand for the foreseeable future and has said its No. 1 priority is putting a team in Los Angeles. So it would seem San Diego will go back to being Los Angeles' little brother.

It saddens me that the government, the media and the citizens of San Diego have accepted the loss of the Chargers and will find themselves following this team as another city embraces it and reaps the prestige when they do win a championship.

It should never be the San Antonio Chargers or the Los Angeles. Chargers or even the Anaheim Chargers. It should always have been the San Diego Chargers, but you all have let it slip away.

CANDELARIO MADUENO
Lt. Col., USAFR
Peyton, Colo

I can't imagine San Diego without an NFL team. I can't believe that. I have my family in the San Diego area, and my team is the Chargers. I hope they keep the team in the city.

VICTOR CASTÁEDA
Mexico City

I feel that it is extremely important that we keep the Chargers in our city for various reasons: people work hard and need to play hard; we all need time to yell, scream and get excited about our sports team; it is a great release of stress and tension.

The Chargers are an awesome football team and work hard to entertain us. They are an asset to the community – the blood drive, hospital visits to cheer people up, and the team helps many charitable organizations as fundraisers.

I can't imagine not being able to watch them play and have that team spirit that is in all of us. So let's fight to keep our Chargers in this beautiful city of ours.

ELYSE HOCHMAN
Escondido

I have been looking for a way to voice my opinion about where a new stadium should be built – for us North County and Riverside County people, we would love to have a new stadium closer to us and not have to go all the way down to the South County.

When we drive to the games there are a ton of fans who drive from our area down to Qualcomm. I think it would be good for us if they would meet us in the middle.

KRYSTAL BELL
Temecula

New name for an old Prado tradition

The “Balboa Park launches 29th December Nights” (Local, Nov. 29) headline is incorrect. For 25 years Christmas on the Prado was an annual San Diego tradition. In September 2002 it was changed to “December Nights” to appease those who don't like the word “Christmas.” So, in truth, December Nights has only been around for four years. As a San Diego native, I had attended Christmas on the Prado as long as I can remember. I know, that as one person, my attendance won't be missed, but I will never attend a December Nights event.

DOROTHY LEWIS
Poway

Two divergent views on Children's Pool

Regarding Kent Trego's letter (Nov. 28). There are well-documented instances of local divers and swimmers alarming and flushing harbor seals off the beach even with the presence of the rope barrier. A small number of men go daily to sit on the beach and swim there and encourage other less-informed members of the public to do the same. This is a critical time as many of the harbor seal females are pregnant and increased harassment has previously resulted in stillbirths and can lead to mother/pup separation.

Secondly, people who are at the beach 24/7 working to protect this colony have never seen people feeding harbor seals off the sea wall. This remains an exceptional opportunity to see these wild marine mammals exhibiting normal behaviors in this environment, which offers a unique educational opportunity that would benefit children far more than its use as a wading pool.

JUDITH LAWRENCE
San Diego

It is unbelievable to me that with all the serious things happening around the world people choose the most ridiculous things to get involved in. We have people starving in parts of the world, and our young men and women in harm's way in Iraq. But in La Jolla we have a group of people who want to get rid of the seals.

It is time for these people to do something constructive with their lives and just leave the seals alone. The people who are so dedicated to being against the seals should put their inspiration into more important issues.

DANIEL L. HILL
Oceanside