POLITICS ASIDE -- s.j. cahn

One of the oldest political cliches -- that all politics are local --

actually is one of the most deceptively complex, as Costa Mesa’s planning

commissioners discovered last week.

For a month, the commission had been going over plans to enact a

moratorium on new development on the city’s West Side. The idea is to

prohibit any building before a revitalization plan for the area is

approved by the City Council.

It makes sense. If you’re planning on reshaping an area, supposedly for

the better, why allow some last-minute construction and design that goes

against your overall vision? Commissioner Chris Fewel had it right when

pushing for the temporary halt.

It was nothing new: a similar plan had been discussed earlier this year,

but the council wasn’t able to agree that it was a good idea.

So there was really no reason for what happened.

Just prior to the vote, Commissioner Katie Wilson announced she couldn’t

vote on the moratorium plan because she had a potential conflict of

interest -- she lives one block from Placentia Avenue and 19th Street,

the “center” of the West Side.

Her words prompted Commission Chairman Walt Davenport to chime in that he

and Fewel might have similar conflicts -- conflicts that not only

affected the decision on the moratorium, but possibly on the West Side

revitalization plan, as well. A vote was postponed for the city attorney

to determine whether a conflict exists.

Aside from the ridiculous timing of these revelations, last Monday’s

meeting is a perfect example of the slippery slope local elected

officials must negotiate when making decisions. Their very relevancy, as

opposed to senators, representatives or assembly people, comes from being

in their community, part of the community and intimately involved in

local happenings.

Decisions they make on adding stop signs to intersections, approving

chain stores or, in this case, stopping building in an area, affect them

as much, and sometimes more, than the residents they represent. Because

they live in the towns they represent, there is always some simmering

conflict.

Thus the slippery slope.

But the legal ramifications are not the problem. Legally, what

constitutes a potential conflict of interest is straight and clear: Any

decision that might have foreseeable effects on an official’s $1,000

investment in business or real estate. If Mayor Gary Monahan were an

owner of The Yardhouse, he wouldn’t have been able to vote to allow it in

Triangle Square, for example.

There are also clear definitions for an issue such as improving the West

Side, which involve how far away an official’s property is and whether

the decision will cause the property’s value to increase by more than

$10,000 in a year.

The problem, instead, is almost purely a matter of perception. Does it

look suspicious that three of the five planning commissioners live or own

property on the West Side and stand to gain from the area’s improvement?

A cynic might say it does. But who wants to be represented by people with

no personal stake in their community? Local officials must be conflicted

in order to be effective. They just need to be honest -- and in the case

of last week’s vote, and little quicker.

* S.J. CAHN is city editor of the Daily Pilot. Send your political news

to him at: Daily Pilot, 330 W. Bay St., Costa Mesa 92627; by fax at (949)

646-4170; or by e-mail to o7 dailypilot@latimes.com.f7 He can be

reached at (949) 574-4268.