Monterey Does Its Share On May 9, Squid looked at the Monterey General Plan Committee report, found the oddity that Monterey was required to produce "0" low and moderate-income housing units, noted the humor that Monterey was claiming success because it had exceeded "0", and drew the untrue conclusion that Monterey did not care about low and moderate-income housing.

I know that squid is a strong housing advocate, so I would like to clarify this point for the record. The City of Monterey has an extremely successful low- and moderate-income housing program. In 1992, the City was assigned a "fair share" of 417 housing units for all income levels, with a requirement for 31 very low-income units, and the aforementioned "0" units for low and moderate-income housing. The City of Monterey has far exceeded our targets by providing 62 very low-income units and an additional 60 units for low and moderate-income households, resulting in 29 percent of our total fair share being for affordable housing. The upcoming Housing Element will continue the City''s active and innovative housing program, with additional support for low and moderate-income households and a strong focus on affordable ownership housing.

DAN ALBERT/MAYOR, MONTEREY

Dogs Don''t Kill People, People Kill People

Mr. Van Middlebrook, do you really think that all large breed dogs are potential killers? [Letters, May 23-29] Do you really think that all owners of large breed dogs would let this ridiculous idea of a so called ban even get off the ground?

If so, I think you have another guess coming. I would fight this to the end. I am quite sure, any person who has and always have had large breed dogs, would do the same.

Perhaps the human race should be banned also. Some large (small) human beings are killing also. There have been recent murders of children and adults on our streets by them and they weren''t defending themselves when they killed or startled and over-reacted, but downright set out to kill.

I didn''t hear you or see you asking for justice in that department. Perhaps it''s just that you feel these animals are justified and the dogs are not?

I think you, and people like you, that feel this way about large animals, would better serve humanity by directing your efforts to finding ways to have so called humans that kill innocent people, banned from the society we call the human race. They certainly don''t belong once they have killed. They belong to an entirely different race. It''s called "murderers."

I think you need a course in animal behavior as well as human nature. Animals do possess the ability to kill humans, but humans possess the same ability and have been exercising it for millions of years. At least the animals have an excuse. Humans do not.

Many people like myself have dogs for protection. I don''t want a lap dog that will lick the hand of someone invading my house, or a burglar who helps himself to my belongings that it took me years to get.

I agree the dogs should be controlled, but I''ll be damned if you or anyone else is going to ban their existence or my God given right to have one.

BETTY MICHE/SALINAS

Take Some Responsibility

We''re all stunned by the failure of our government to follow through on that astute Arizona FBI agent''s warning about terrorists taking flight training for the purpose of hijackings.

Funny how everyone has an excuse for ignoring the FBI report.

Congress allocates more than $30 billion a year to the CIA and FBI-yet these bozos are still using Radio Shack computers? Can''t afford to send e-mail? What do they do with the money? I suppose it''s unpatriotic to ask.

JOHN HOWELLS/PACIFIC GROVE