Coronado Eagle, Volume 5, Number 44, 2 November 1994 — Writer Asks Why Must We Have the Least Tern Preserve? [ARTICLE]

Writer Asks Why Must We Have the Least Tern Preserve?

Dear Editor: A few weeks ago a writer bewailed the fact that 90-some-odd signs along the Strand constituted an unacceptable eyesore, and that elimination should be included in a beautification project. He seems to have overlooked the fact that 56 signs arc on the Navy's Ixast Tem preserve alone? Was that number in-

cluded in the 90 figure? If so, that means that over fifty percent of the "eyesore" was the result of the Ecologists deal with the Navy that allowed the latter to continue to use gainfully the waters immediately surrounding its Amphib. Base, The above-mentioned 56 sigas are mounted on a 1.1-mile length of 8-ft. high

chain-link fence topped by three strands of barbed wire. Now that is a real eyesore! It obstructs the otherwise beautiful view of the South Bay and deprives would-be picnickers/boaters/ swimmers of a beautiful natural littoral setting. Why can't we eliminate that fence for the public good? Of course, such a proposal would throw the Least Tem zealots into a tizzy, but can't we favor people once in a while? Southern California has plenty of LT preserves. Why must we have this one more? Half of the 56 signs warn of danger (due to unexploded weapons?) That did not seem to be a problem before the fence. If there is a real danger, the Navy ought to be able to sweep and purge the area to eliminate all hazard as part of Reserve training activity. If the Navy can’t. I'll bet the Army, or maybe even the Air Force, would love to parade their ability, especially on Navy property. Let’s start with basics when we start spending to beautify the Strand!

W. Mercer